2002-02-26
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Minister, pursuant to Standing Order 93, I nominate Wednesday, 27 February 2002 as the next sitting day on which general business will have precedence of government business.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 80 petitioners praying that the plan to demolish the Cawood Court unit complex in Alice Springs, and the previous plans for the site to be developed, proceed.
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petitions numbers 2, 4, 7, and 9 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
Petition No 2
Darwin Harbour
Date petition presented: 17 October 2001
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Parks and Wildlife
Date response received: 21 December 2001
Date response presented: 26 February 2002
Response:
The Northern Territory government is actively considering a number of options for the sound management
of the natural values of Darwin Harbour, including its extensive mangrove communities. These include
the possible establishment of national parks and development of a Plan of Management under the
Planning Act.
Developments proposed for Middle Arm Peninsula and for the gas and petrochemical industry in the Top End
in general, will be subject to environmental risk assessments and would be developed only in accordance with
appropriate environmental management programs. Government is committed to developing and implementing
an integrated and comprehensive environment policy which supports sustainable development in the Territory
Petition No 4
Presented by: Mr Stirling
Date response presented: 26 February 2002
Response:
Woodroffe Primary School in Palmerston:
day due to lack of classroom space. This has been the situation now for over 18 months:
to lack of classroom space:
Woodroffe Primary School:
the immediate future and the long term:
7. There be adequate classrooms provided for the immediate future and the long term according to that
assessment:
Petition No 7
Presented by: Mr Henderson
Date response presented: 26 February 2002
Response:
Petition No 9
Presented by: Mr Mills
Referred to: Minister for Sport and Recreation
Date response received: 21 February 2002
Date response presented: 26 February 2002
Response:
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the Gallery of Mrs Noreen Brown and members of the family; friends, and Darwin City Council colleagues of the late Mr George Brown. On behalf of all honourable members I extend a warm welcome to you all.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Mr George Brown - Lord Mayor
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise you of the death on 8 January 2002 of Mr George Brown, the Lord Mayor of Darwin from 1992 until his passing. I will ask honourable members, on the completion of the debate, to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect. I call upon the Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly express its deep regret at the death of George Brown, Lord Mayor of Darwin from 1992 until his death, and place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious service to the people of the Northern Territory, in particular the citizens of Darwin, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family.
Madam Speaker, it is my sad duty today to speak on this condolence motion for the former Lord Mayor of Darwin, George Brown. George was born in Paddington, New South Wales on 29 June 1929. He died in Darwin on 8 January this year, aged 72. George was a fine horticulturist with a passion for botanic gardens and he has left a huge legacy to this city, and a big gap in our lives. After three terms as Lord Mayor there is no question of his popularity with the people of this city and this Territory. We can see that in the outpouring of grief around Darwin following our loss.
A larger than life figure, he embodied some of the values that we see as uniquely Territorian - bluntness, egalitarianism and an ability to enjoy life to the full. Who could ever forget the time he showed the Today Show his Playboy brand boxer shorts, or when he kneed a member of the public in the groin after an altercation with an irate rate payer, or the time he claimed he could drive perfectly after one-and-a-half bottles of red wine. George told me the story about when he actually had drunk a whole lot of red wine and was breath tested in a pub. It did not show any kind of effect, it did not show any kind of level of alcohol in his blood. I think he actually was an extraordinary character, or had an extraordinary physiology, when it came to red wine and himself.
By all accounts, George had his share of difficulties in early life, spending many years in a boys’ home as a child. He later worked at many jobs including kangaroo shooting, gardening, shearing, the merchant navy, on sheep and cattle stations and on the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. Not forgetting, when he was at school at Parramatta Boys’ High, he was the captain of the cricket team that Richie Benaud, the Australian captain in the 1960s, was a member - and tells wonderful stories about how Richie Benaud’s father developed the skills of his sons while George was the captain of the team.
George arrived in Darwin in 1967 and fell in love with the place, as has happened to so many of us. Apparently, he was smitten after playing a round of golf at the old course on East Point and when you walk around that part of Darwin you can understand the magic that worked on him. I understand he sent a telegram to his employer in New South Wales saying: ‘Staying in Darwin, won’t be back’.
He got a job at a quarry at the 39 mile and it was at a social occasion in the neighbourhood that he met Noreen, a school teacher. They were married in 1969 and George soon after found the job of his dreams in the parks and gardens section of the Darwin City Council. By 1972, he was elevated to superintendent with a house inside the Botanic Gardens. He had found his vocation.
As we all know, the Botanic Gardens became George’s passion and the focus for his energies for so many years. His aim in life was to turn Darwin into a tropical garden, and when we walk and drive around the beautiful avenues of this city, it is George we have to thank, particularly for his work after Cyclone Tracy. George found out everything there was to know about trees and gardens. He set up garden clubs and societies and handed out advice to home gardeners, both on television and radio. His passion and advocacy made him – well, maybe not so much enemies - but people who would love to argue with him and, at one stage, he found himself banished to an office out in Palmerston. It was at that stage he decided to run for Lord Mayor and was elected to that office in 1992 by a convincing margin. George stayed in office until his untimely death last month.
A great character, a man of passionate views and the will to carry them into action, there will never be another George Brown.
On a personal note on behalf of my family, I would like to say thank you to George for the years of friendship he showed to us: to myself, my partner and especially to my children who he really was extraordinarily kind to - they both saw him as a friend. Again on a personal level, I will miss his company, I will miss the shared passion we had for many issues about Darwin and the Territory, particularly when it came to planning and maintaining our unique lifestyle. I will miss his sense of fun and irreverence that he shared with many others beside me, his views of the world - and sometimes we would disagree quite vehemently about them. I will miss dancing with him and I will miss drinking red wine with him.
My heartfelt condolences go to Noreen and the children, and all of us who are going to very much miss George Brown. On behalf of this parliament, I say he has made an enormous contribution to Darwin and the Territory. He made an enormous contribution to civic life and I think he touched every single one of us and we will certainly miss him.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister has outlined the role that George Brown played in our community and the incredible life that he lived to the full for 72 years. His death last month produced an enormous reaction amongst people of all walks of life. It was both an outpouring of grief and a celebration of the man and his actions. This morning, in formally supporting this motion, I only have a few words to add to what has already said and written about George Brown.
It was said of President Reagan that he was the ‘teflon president’; that nothing he nor his administration did, nor any of their mistakes or scandals, sullied his place in the affection of the majority of the people of the United States. George Brown had that same gift. Whatever council decided, whatever mishaps there were in some people’s mind, such as the mall, George seemed able to float above them and retain the love of the majority of the people. His eccentricities such as the caftan, the infamous underwear, the Mayoral Chain T-shirt, the desire to sing in public just about anytime he got a microphone, did not diminish his standing but rather increased the affection in which he was held. ‘Oh, that’s George’, was the universal response. He was a true larrikin in all the ways we use that word in Australia as a label of honour. He could be an annoying gadfly and a formidable opponent, a staunch ally and an eternal friend.
But he was the true friend who told you very, very bluntly when he thought you were doing the wrong thing. George was the bridge between the wild, last frontier, anything-can-happen Darwin and the modern city that we live in today. With George as Lord Mayor, the image lived on even though in reality he was pursuing his dream to make Darwin a city to rival any of the other capitals of Australia.
For 10 years our city was lead by this eccentric, charismatic Lord Mayor who so held the affection of the majority of the people he found little need to even campaign to be re-elected twice as the city’s first citizen.
Along with the many things that have been said about George Brown and his role in public life, I believe it was characterised by one outstanding trait, and I use the word ‘independence’. Independence from political parties, independence from vested interests, independence from political pressure in all its many forms, he was truly his own man serving only Territorians and acting, in his way, only in their interests. Labor, Conservative, Democrats, Greenies, any of them, no one can claim George Brown. He was his own man.
For many years before public office he devoted his life to developing our Botanic Gardens, now rightfully named in his honour and convincing the rest of us to develop our gardens.
Our thoughts this morning are with Noreen and we welcome her and her family to the Chamber this morning. They have lost husband, father, grandfather and brother. They have suffered a grievous personal loss.
We have all lost one of the great advocates for Darwin, an advocate for the continuing development of a great, green, tropical, modern city. In the end, it will be greening of Darwin after Cyclone Tracy and the rescue of the green ants will be the eternal monument to this irascible, loveable character.
The American humorist and poet, Ogden Nash, once wrote:
That verse could have been written for George Brown and I am sure George Brown would have said: ‘Good one, Ogden’. For his life and for his contribution to Darwin and the Territory, we can do no better than to borrow his own phrase: Good one, George.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I first met George Brown some years ago before he was actually the Lord Mayor of Darwin when, as I was a caller to his radio program on gardens, he advised me on the growing methods of various tropical plants. As an ardent gardener - and much, I must say, to the surprise of myself and my family - he appeared at our house the next day for a particular inspection on our plants. Our plants were very sad looking, I must say, and he offered various remedies personally. I am not sure that they got any better, but his kindness stays with me. I remember that time, and I think it is a reflection of the man, that he was very much a man of the people who took a keen interest in both the people of Darwin and the development of Darwin, particularly issues relating to planning and the environment.
In recent years, I re-met him as part of my former business career, and I valued his humour and large network of Darwin people. He is one of those people who seemed to know everyone and was a very much well loved Lord Mayor. I last saw him at a function at the conclusion of the Year of the Volunteer in Parliament House on 20 December last year, and he went around thanking people and congratulating them for their efforts. This was George at his best representing Darwin.
On a personal level, I will miss George and wish his widow, Noreen, and his family well during this sad time. Vale, George Brown.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, last month the Darwin community experienced the sudden loss of our Lord Mayor, George Brown. Even a casual observer must have been struck by the warmth and volume of the messages in support and sympathy expressed to George’s wife and family in the NT News. These messages were an indicator of the impact George had had on the people of Darwin.
I first met George around 1992 when he came to Katherine to look at people’s gardens. I am not a keen gardener, although I certainly appreciate a good garden when I am in one. A friend of mine invited me to join a group of Katherine gardeners as this special person was visiting – and that, of course, was George – and we could go around with him to the various gardens and perhaps learn a thing or two. So, on a typically hot afternoon, we traipsed around. The gardens we visited were a mixed bag and George turned out to be a funny, frank person who spoke very candidly on what he liked and what he did not like. What stuck in my memory was the number of times he told people to ‘pull it out’. What a shock! I thought these gardening types were all for planting stuff, but George, I learnt, was all for quality plants which can be seen and not hidden behind a great load of jungle.
When George decided to run for the position of Darwin’s Lord Mayor in 1992, his media profile as a result of things such as his gardening show had him as a genuine bloke, and I am sure that stood him in very good stead during that election campaign. I can remember after returning from Katherine to live in Darwin in 1993, how the locals felt the obvious improvement in parks and road verges and that they were a result of George’s win. My husband and I would often comment: ‘On you, George’, whenever we passed new improvements going in.
George’s death has provided an opportunity for many to reflect on the character of the man. I will not go into red wine and boxer shorts; that testimony can be found elsewhere. I have spoken to some of the current aldermen and past aldermen and learnt of the genuine affection they had for George Brown. They considered him a hard working man with an enormous love for Darwin. On the practical side, many of our city aldermen considered him a very good chairman of the regular council meetings and various committees he chaired over his time. His skill lay in being a good listener, giving everyone a chance to speak but, when the time came, bringing things together so a decision could be made.
Although George was obviously not one for pomp and ceremony, he took other aspects of his role very seriously. These included the PR aspect of the job. He worked tirelessly to promote Darwin, particularly when there was an opportunity to meet and greet visitors to the city such as cruise ships or representatives from our Sister Cities. Milikapiti is a Sister City of Darwin. It was a very moving moment at the wake held for George just outside here, to see the genuine affection the dancers from Milikapiti displayed. Their dancing was organised by the council President, Gibson Farmer, and movingly introduced by Mary Elizabeth Moreen, a council member. From her introduction, I gathered that George and Noreen Brown had visited their community on a number of occasions and both had obviously made a very real impact on the people.
It is obvious George was no part-time mayor. Most days he attended his office in the Council Chambers, fitting in a walk down the mall or a trip to our wharf to see how people were going. As the local member, I would occasionally bump into George in the mall and we would sit under a tree and mull over things. Other times, I would watch George from a distance. I would see him saying hello to people and being what he was: accessible, one of the people.
George was a popular boss for the council staff. Many of them found him a comfortable, approachable, relaxed and friendly man. I know many of his staff, past and present, were genuinely affected by his death. At a personal level, he was a role model; his passion for Darwin, and I also appreciated greatly his independence at a political level.
So to George’s family, who I know he loved and was so proud of, on behalf of the people of Port Darwin, I send you our sympathies for a husband, a father, a grandfather and a mayor who was irrepressible, who will be irreplaceable and who is sadly missed.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, my abiding memory of George Brown will be as a man and a mayor who was accessible, jovial, egalitarian and who was passionate about Darwin and the future development of Darwin. In every forum that I attended with George, wherever we were, whatever the community, George was always talking about how we could further develop Darwin to the benefit not only of our local community but also in terms of attracting investment here and bringing Darwin along economically.
His commitment to the greening of Darwin that other members have spoken about will truly be the lasting legacy of George Brown, the man and the mayor, and the beautiful, tropical city that we live in today, during the wet season, which we finally have, is in large part a testament to George Brown. The Botanic Gardens, which have quite rightly been named after him, will always stand as the true testament to the man.
Like many other people here, I suppose, whenever I have friends, family visiting from interstate, one of the places I always take people is to the Botanic Gardens. I really believe that those gardens do show off the tropical nature of our city and what is achievable in our city, and that is replicated in so many gardens around Darwin where people have been inspired by the Botanic Gardens and have sought to replicate those gardens within their own homes. I just wish that some of his commitment to gardening would rub off on me. It is not something that I have ever found time for, but I always admire people’s beautiful gardens, and they are in large part due to George Brown and particularly, as the member for Nightcliff spoke about, his time on the radio answering questions.
The other great memory I have of George and his egalitarianism is that he truly did embrace the multicultural community of Darwin. He was a friend of everybody, regardless of race, colour or creed. He was always there at the many multicultural events that we as members of parliament attend and, as the Leader of the Opposition said, he had a passion for serenading the crowd. On many occasions, George would stand up and belt out a particular number and that always went down well. But you never sensed with George that it was all part of a show; it really was that he believed in the multicultural aspect of our city and totally embraced it.
The last official event that I attended with George, just after Christmas, was the announcement of the commencement of the first stages of the Leeon Consortium’s Chinatown development. Again, George was absolutely passionate and committed to that development and saw it as an extension of the multicultural aspect of our city, and the ability to promote that aspect of our city interstate and overseas. He truly did embrace the concept. When that development is up and running that will be, in large part, testament to George Brown’s vision for the development of Darwin.
After that particular event, I attended a dinner that night, along with the opposition leader, and again George spoke passionately about the contribution of the Chinese community to Darwin and the Northern Territory and, as he always did, some of his anecdotes about the community were close to the edge. But George was never one for political correctness and nobody ever sensed any offence. He was just George being his usual self, having fun and talking as he saw it. He was genuinely embraced by the community and will be sadly missed.
George Brown, a true Darwin identity who did make a difference. He has left a lasting legacy to our community. On behalf of the Wanguri and Leanyer community, I pass on our condolences to Noreen and her family.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, ‘George Brown, former Botanic Gardens curator and long serving Lord Mayor, was one of the Territory’s best loved and most colourful figures’, wrote Camden Smith in the Northern Territory News of 9 January 2002.
‘His point of view on most matters was always black or white, never shades of grey. His lifelong passion was for things green and natural. His personal preference was for reds. But his name was Brown, a colourful character by any definition with a personality that was at all times true blue’, so descriptively eulogised by Allan McGill, Chief Executive Officer of the Darwin City Council at a church service on 14 January.
It brings back to my memory the time that I was representing the then Minister for Industries and Business at a presentation dinner at the old Beaufort Hotel Ballroom. I had to address the gathering of some 300 or so participants and award winners. I duly acknowledged the presence of the then Administrator, His Honour, Dr Neil Conn, and Mrs Lesley Conn; the then Chief Minister, the Hon Shane Stone, and Mrs Josephine Stone; and His Worship the Lord Mayor of Darwin, Mr George and Mrs Noreen - and for the life of me I could not recall his surname! I thought by using Noreen’s name that the surname would spring to mind. I stumbled along, and indeed commented over the public address system, to the amusement of the crowd, that I could not remember the surname, and I had known George and Noreen for years. It was not until the MC, Theona Mitaros, leant forward to remind me that I could proceed with delivering the body of my speech. Apart from apologising profusely to George and Noreen for the faux pas, I vowed to George that I would remember his surname from then on with my own picture of him as George Chocolate. And I never forgot his surname at any public function after that time. But just like George and gracious Noreen, sitting there in the gallery, they took it in great spirit and we continued to be good friends.
I came to know about George when I used to listen to his gardening radio show on the ABC each Saturday morning. My wife, Sharon, is a very keen gardener and she loved to listen to George’s tips on gardening in the Territory. But listening to George, for a Top Ender, a tropics man, he seemed to know a lot about desert gardening also. I am not a real gardener, I am not particularly imbued by that hobby, so many Saturday mornings started with battles about whether to listen to George or not. On some Saturday mornings he got me interested enough to pay attention to what he had to teach about Central Australian gardening.
It was no surprise to me when George announced that he was going to give the mayoral role a go in 1992. He had a public profile in Darwin, but what he had more was his desire to see Darwin and its city council become the premier council in the Territory. I was also in local government then, and the mayoral contest in Darwin was as interesting to me as was the pending council elections in Alice Springs. I was just finishing my second term as an alderman on the Alice Springs Town Council, during which I was also the Deputy Mayor. He was such a well known personality across the Territory and, obviously, particularly in Darwin.
Much has been said of George today and in the many eulogies written and spoken of him, words put together by people who have known him closer and for longer than I. I have known him and Noreen for but a few years. Noreen and I have a common interest in karaoke, but that is another story for another time.
George brought with him his laid back, yet punching-from-the-shoulder manner into local government politics. He was challenging of any matter that he could not agree with, and in others with which he agreed, but he felt needed more thought. Through my dealings with the man, as a member of parliament and later as the Minister for Local Government, I found him to be gracious, yet provocative and even controversial, eccentric and lovable. I enjoyed my repartee with him. He was quick of mind and age did not dull any of that - nor did the red wine - in fact on some occasions the red wine sharpened his comments.
I find most commendable the respect that his council colleagues and officers had for him. As Allan McGill said of him:
That is truly the mark of a good leader and political representative. His unapologetic commentary and his disregard for political correctness and what, to some people, may be inappropriate dress code, occasionally got George into trouble. Need I say any more about the boxer shorts or the knee in the nether regions of an obnoxious rate payer?
I never went to China with George - although I did go to Hong Kong with the his predecessor, Alec Fong Lim - and have not spoken with anyone who had been on those trips with him. I often wondered how he got on over there; whether it was a different George in China than in Darwin. Just the same, I don’t believe I, or anyone, had anything to fear about his behaviour. He was always the consummate politician when he met with heads of state, ambassadors and dignitaries of all sorts. I am sure he would have been likewise in China. His love of China was well known and I am was very glad to see him supporting the Leeon Consortium and the Chinatown development in the Darwin City. I hope that future councils will continue to support that, to develop the history of the Chinese in the Top End.
Many leaders would like to have had George’s ability to say what was in his mind, and have the commentary taken by the listener in the spirit with which it was delivered; that is the mark of a true leader. George Brown was a man for Darwin - he loved it, he lived it, he died while doing his job for it. As in the headline of the NT News of 10 January 2002, I say: ‘Farewell, George. You were …’ – and if I may add, you are – ‘… dearly loved.’
It was just and fitting that the Territory accorded him with a state funeral. On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to pass my condolences to Noreen and their four children, Yvonne, Patrick, Stuart and Bruce, and the many grandchildren of the family. Vale, George Brown!
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, as someone who does enjoy gardening, I would like to reflect on George the gardener, because the attitude of a gardener is reflected in all that George did. I understand Kipling once wrote that gardeners don’t arise by simply sitting in the shade and saying: ‘How lovely’. George was one who stepped forward from the shade and made a difference, not just in gardens but in the way that the tropical north does present itself.
When I considered moving to the Northern Territory, those around me had a picture of Darwin which is quite dissimilar to the way it appears today. I don’t think we could take anything away from the fact that the change in the Northern Territory’s capital city is as a result of the confidence, the knowledge and the passion we now have to create a tropical look for our capital city, largely due to the work of George Brown. I would have to say - to give a Palmerston connection - Palmerston is a city that is green, and a much of that is the experience that has been gained in Darwin. We started only a little while ago, so every garden there, or suburb, that would emerge, within a matter of two or three years is completely green. And so the legacy goes on.
Everyone has a George Brown story and, coming to the Northern Territory with a sense of this adventurous type of place, I can distinctly remember one week when my attention was arrested by George Brown. There was an acting principal of a northern suburbs school who had - I think George had only been elected for a short time - in that week run into George Brown’s car with the school bus. He was horrified, and then surprised to find that George said: ‘No worries, mate’, and it all got fixed up. He was quite impressed with the carefree attitude and that there was no drama. You know: ‘You okay?’, ‘Yes, everything is fine’.
Later in that week, when I went to a board meeting, a reverend came to speak to me and said: ‘Did you hear George Brown on the gardening show?’ ‘No, I didn’t’. He said: ‘Well, it will only be in Darwin, mate’. He said that a caller phoned to ask for advice about a liquid fertiliser and, without any ado, he suggested that this elderly lady should grab herself a bucket and piddle into it, top it up with water, and throw it on the plants. There was no offence in it because any good gardener knows that that is fair enough. But I think the image of a mayor speaking as such to an elderly caller certainly got everyone’s attention. We then started to understand that this man ain’t no regular mayor. Once again, there was no criticism. He was just a delightful man of his own cut and his own charter in life.
He had no drama about pulling out weeds in gardens, as the member for Port Darwin referred to. There was no drama about pulling out any weed, or any concept that he would have to cast his eye on and say: ‘Well, that’s rubbish, and get rid of it’. You knew exactly where he stood. A gardener would also look to the future. A gardener doesn’t plant something just for their own return; a tree is planted for future generations. The Botanic Gardens are there for many, many years and for many generations and families to enjoy.
I guess the love that we have for George is that he did look beyond himself. He looked not just to now, not just to an election, not just to his campaign, but he sincerely worked for the greater good of the Northern Territory. I would have to say, in that respect, he is an example to me, personally as a politician - and, I would suggest, to everyone here - in the example that he did set in his own affairs from beginning to end. He was a gardener to the end, watering a plant in his own office.
Everyone has a George story but what I found remarkable, I suppose, is a reminder of our job in representing people. George had a contact with every person - there was a point of contact. He was not fake, but there was a real connection that every person could actually make in a meaningful way with him. I remarked on that. I felt that I had a personal connection through my farming background. He was in Western Australia at one stage in an area that I am familiar with, and I thought: ‘Oh gee, that is interesting, I feel special. I know George, and I know something about his past and he knows something about my past’. I reflected as time went on, practically every person had a point of contact with George in some unique way. That meant that he cared for people and he could make that contact, and that is what makes the difference.
Finally, in terms of the future, I have had the great privilege of looking at George still with us in some respects, in his grandchildren. Watch out! Daniel Brown, his grandson, whom I know well, and Peta Maree have a spark of George in them as well.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a tribute to the memory of the late George Brown. I cannot recall the age I was when I first came to know George. I certainly recall that his wife, Noreen, was a teacher at Nimira Primary School, post-Cyclone Tracy when three schools were merged. I recall that Dawn, my mother, would often take me to the Botanic Gardens on a weekend where she would sit down and discuss the burning political issues of the day with George and Noreen, who were good friends of hers and remain good friends.
I was touched by the outpouring of love extended to Noreen and her family by the community of Darwin in the time of the tragic death of George. It reminded me why I love this city: because this city and its people love the characters who work hard for them. I found George, as a professional, in dealing with him while I was Editor of the Darwin Sun, to be absolutely accessible and to be generous with his time. For me, he was also a man who encouraged youth, and the aspirations of youth entering public life. We would run into each other at various functions. He would always greet me with an enormous smile and a kiss on the cheek and words of encouragement. He was an aspiration to me. He will always be in my memory about what it means to work for the people. I share the sentiments of the member for Blain in that respect. He taught many of us that we ought to care about people, and take that caring through every aspect of our working lives.
I find the work he did in the Botanic Gardens to be quite glorious. My children and I go down there regularly and enjoy it. If I ever need to feel close to George, picnics down there will be a special time for myself and my family. When I find those quite moments in the garden at home with my children, when the sun is shining and the breeze is coming up, I can have quiet conversation of the goodness that can be found in many of our leaders and the man to me who epitomised that was George.
I give my heartfelt condolences to Noreen and the family. I thank them for giving their time of the man who was special in their lives. I know how difficult it can be when someone devotes their life to the community and that means that sometimes the family misses out. But it paid off in the end. Darwin is a far greater city and better city for him and I thank him.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, the speakers before me spoke highly about the late George Brown and that is no doubt expected because of the attributes that the late Mayor had. It is very noticeable that the contributions from all sides of politics is great.
I first ran into George Brown when wandering around the Botanic Gardens some time ago as a young fellow, and it was great to see that he was so at home with the natural world. Living in Katherine, as I did later on, I already regarded him through that distinctive voice of his as something of a friend through his radio show. Little did he realise that he had been guiding my hands in the garden.
Of course, I became much more familiar with the man and his style after he first became the Lord Mayor of Darwin - and what a style George projected. Most admirable was that he was a man who was always prepared to speak his mind on any issue. I think particularly on planning issues he was a man who showed the importance that local government can play in the every day lives of citizens. And of course he made a few enemies. I know that some Aboriginal leaders had some concerns about statements George made about itinerants, but it should be remembered that he was a man with a good heart. His main concern was that people should be able to return to their families and to their traditional lands instead of running into trouble with grog and violence in town. It is the same concern that many Aboriginal people share so it is hardly a redneck view.
My last fond memories of George were at the Territory Tidy Towns awards night last November in the Chan Building and watching him work the crowd. There were many Aboriginal communities represented at the awards and what stood out was that George treated presidents of remote communities as being the equal of him as Lord Mayor. He well understood their problems.
One of his co-local government leaders was from Milikapiti. It was quite funny actually when George was presenting the award and the president from Milikapiti was accepting the award. Obviously, George had had his usual couple of red wines and the president from Milikapiti had also had quite a few beers. It was like the blind leading the blind off the stage! It was just wonderful to observe that because that spoke volumes about the man. It was a natural act of George to show care and concern and that is something that certainly will remain in my memory for quite some time.
Having the Botanic Gardens named after George Brown is a fitting tribute.
Madam Speaker, on this sad occasion I welcome the presence of Noreen and her family. I think you know, as all of us do here today, that we lost a great man. Long may his memory last.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, to a large degree it is difficult to add to all the wonderful stories and recollections that have already been made about George Brown, a great Territorian in every sense of the word. I certainly concur with the member for Blain because what is emerging here is the way that George Brown touched many people’s lives. He was a very accessible person and it is wonderful that all the tributes that have come from both sides of politics and from the citizens of Darwin. Like most Darwin people, I knew George for his mayoral duties and community services and I will speak briefly about these soon.
However, I would like to draw on the recollections of my friend, Craig Coleman, who has lived in the Territory for many years who first got to know George Brown after the cyclone. I think the way in which George assisted and supported Craig is probably a very common story and it is worth telling because of that. Like George, Craig has a life long interest in horticulture and immense respect for George’s knowledge of horticulture. However, Craig’s experience was in New Zealand and in the southern states, and he recalls first meeting George who issued an open invitation to share his vast knowledge with him and to help wherever he could. George freely did so over the next 25 or so years such was George’s generosity with his immense knowledge. When Craig embarked on a project to resurface the Dili Stadium, George was great supporter and was quickly able to convince council to support with tools, machinery and allow one of their employees, Mr Martino Soares, also to assist.
George was someone who could get things done. For those of who are representatives in the northern suburbs and in Darwin, we know the problems that mahogany trees can pose for us. I had one particular constituent, an elderly lady who was ill, who had a giant mahogany tree that had been given to her as a seedling post-cyclone to plant in her backyard. It grew into a massive tree and threatened her safety and her property. As a last resort - we had exhausted most of the avenues - she contacted George and very soon after that mahogany was removed. That was a great weight off the lady’s shoulders and also mine I might add. George never hesitated to help.
George turned his hand to many things and he was even a sports commentator. Last year, along with Tom Pauling, he commentated ‘Roy and HG’ style in the Roma Bar Cricket Cup. An unlikely pair being Roy and HG but I am told they did a fantastic job.
Finally, I remember George as patron of the Heart Foundation and I know that he supported many other community organisations and charities in the same enthusiastic way. He was always a lot of fun and he did turn his hand to singing on a number of occasions with the Heart Foundation. I think he had a special spot for the Heart Foundation because of the health recommendation of taking red wine - although he had a bit of a different idea in the quantities - to promote cardiovascular health.
Madam Speaker, it has been an honour for me to offer my condolences to Noreen and the family on behalf of the people of Johnston and so many other people throughout the Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, above all else, George was a gardener and for me that automatically makes the man great - with my apologies to the member for Wanguri.
George knew his plants and loved his plants and he shared that knowledge and love with anyone who was interested, and there were plenty of them. My first connection with George was when I worked on Bathurst Island as a works supervisor for Nguiu Shire Council. We had a coconut nursery and he wanted coconuts and now they grow tall near the Gardens nine-hole golf course. When I go past there, or if I get a chance to play golf and am looking for a golf ball under the coconut trees, I always think of George.
Local government was his other passion. Much to the chagrin of some people in this Chamber, George passionately loved local government, especially Darwin local government, and he told people so. He believed local government was the government for the people and he was the man best suited to lead the Darwin City Council because he was an independent man of the people.
I laughed and argued with George on many occasions. I met George through our roles in local government. No, we didn’t always agree, but George was never afraid to speak his mind, whether it was about his city, feral cats, the harbour, parking meters, the effects of red wine, African mahogany trees, political speeches on citizenship ceremony days, or the Planning Act, he said his piece.
I have just been recently elected as Chairman of the Australian Open Garden Scheme Northern Territory, of which George was the chairman. It will not be possible to fill his shoes, nor would I attempt to, but I know when I am judging gardens through Darwin and the rural areas, he will be keeping an eye on what I do or how I judge those African mahoganies.
We will all miss George, his jokes, his larrikinism, his thoughts, his wisdom and his love for people, no matter how high or low they ranked in society. He made no distinction. My condolences to Noreen and the family, to his friends, and aldermen of Darwin City Council. I say: Rest in peace, George, but I have a feeling he is already giving a few gardening tips to his maker.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their remarks. Before I ask members to observe a minute’s silence, I, too, would like to make a few remarks.
I have known George both professionally and personally for many years. He was a person who always made himself available to me, and that has come across in your remarks. Whenever I wanted that second opinion or a no-nonsense point of view, what always impressed me was his belief in fair play and his sense of justice, his ability to rationalise situations and come up with simple answers - something we all should learn from.
George was, as you have all said, a people person. That is what people remember most, his approachability. Can I just remind members - and the Clerk reminded me this morning - that George had a quest in life. You may remember, Noreen, that he always searched for that bottle of bad red wine. I want you to understand that the Clerk and many others of us will continue that tradition of searching for that bottle of bad red wine.
To you and your family, we extend our condolences. You know that we all mean that sincerely and we wish you well in the future.
Finally, I have been requested to associate former members of this Assembly, the Clerk and Officers of the Legislative Assembly with the terms of the motion and to express their sincere sympathy also to Noreen, her family and friends.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I now ask honourable members to observe one minute’s silence.
I thank honourable members. While family and guests are leaving us, I inform the House that I have invited Noreen and her family into my office for a morning tea. If any of you that can join us, please feel free to do so.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that at 9.40 am tomorrow the Chung Wah Society Lion Dance Troupe will perform a traditional Chinese Lion Dance to bless the Chamber for good luck for the Year of the Black Horse. I would ask those honourable members wishing to be present for the traditional Chinese Lion Dance blessing to be seated in the Chamber by 9.30 am. The bells will be rung at 9.30 am.
I also advise that I have given permission for various media representatives to film or take photographs of the Chung Wah Society Dance Troupe performing the traditional Chinese dance.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with regret that I advise of the death on 31 January 2002 of Dr Ronald Campbell (Dick) Webb, AM, who was an Official Member of the Sixth Legislative Council from July 1958 until October 1959. Dr Webb was an appointed member of that Council. On behalf of honourable members, a message of condolence has been sent to the family of Dr Webb.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, last August, Territorians voted for a government that would listen to them whatever their background or interest. The business community has voiced its views through the Economic Development Summit, the recent business round table and through better access to ministers. It is very clear that we inherited capital works and maintenance programs that were in a mess.
Shortly after taking office the government was advised that no money had been allocated to a number of significant capital works announcements by the previous government. On closer examination of the capital works and maintenance programs we found that there was a drastic shortfall of cash for repairs and maintenance work largely driven by underfunding for repairing flood damage. This is the type of work that impacts on small contractors across the Territory.
We also found that very large projects like the port and hospital had soaked up the majority of the cash for capital works and needed more of it. We found that the capital works program was essentially a wish list of announcements and that the revote for this financial year and for the next financial year was at an unsustainable level. The scope for new works was so narrow as to be virtually non-existent.
This government acted immediately. We allocated an additional $10m to be split between minor new building works, and repairs and maintenance. The $6m for repairs and maintenance was designed to overcome the black hole of this budget and ensure that period contractors had an amount of work to keep as many jobs as possible in those businesses.
The rest of that money, $4m, was designed to overcome the steep drop in cash allocation that would have occurred in the minor building works area had the CLP’s May budget been left in place. Given that in 2000-01 the cash allocated to minor works was about $19m, the cash that the CLP government had made available to minor works in 2001-02 was going to drop to about $9m. This would have left many small businesses in serious trouble. After these allocations were made by the Labor government, we also promised to keep an eye on the effect of these reallocations and to look again at whether more was needed to be done.
I am pleased to announce this morning that the government now intends to allocate: $4.5m for minor building works made up of reallocated funds and new money; an additional $0.5m for design work this financial year to ensure that those industry sectors, such as architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, have work coming their way; and an additional $0.5m to commence environmental and engineering studies to be done at Glyde Point to prepare for major gas based developments in that location. Additionally, Territory Housing will be fast tracking $900 000 to increase their minor works program aimed at renovating and improving our public housing stock.
The effect of these increased allocations will mean that there will be a total cash allocation in 2000-01 of approximately $18m for minor new works plus an additional $1m that will flow into the building and engineering design professions. It also means that small business and contractors such as plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and cabinet makers, will all benefit by extra work and more security over the coming weeks and months.
As an example, the following additional works will go to tender in the coming weeks:
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a government that has done nothing in six months that it has held office. This is a government that has stood here at every opportunity and brought forth statements about what they are going to do, who they are going to consult with, how they are going to create jobs, how they are going to help small business. The proof is in the pudding. We have unemployment in the Northern Territory at 8.4%. We have small business in probably the worst circumstances that they have ever been in in the Northern Territory, and if you do not know that, go out and talk to them.
If you walk down the mall - if it wasn’t for the railway there would be tumble weeds rolling down that mall at the moment. There are so many shops empty down there in the mall in Darwin. You walk out to Casuarina Plaza, talk to the people at Casuarina Plaza, and there are less of them to talk to because they are either moving out to cheaper places because they can’t afford it, or they are closed, and you know that. Now don’t tell us that the Capital Works Program was a wish list, because the Capital Works Program was the real thing. It was about things called the railway, things called the redevelopment of Alice Springs Hospital, things called the redevelopment of Darwin Hospital, things called the Alice Springs Convention Centre, which you point to proudly as growing jobs in the Northern Territory. These are all initiatives of a CLP government. What has happened with this government is nothing.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I appreciate he has been to central council. I know that he gets fired up after he has been to these things, but there is no need to shout. I could hear him from outside of Parliament House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Continue, please.
Mr BURKE: Mr Deputy Speaker, if there is anyone who has a record of shouting in this House, it is the Leader of Government Business and Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Just continue, please.
Mr BURKE: There is a reason to get concerned. I am concerned because - let’s use this House for a little more than a litany of press releases coming up; let’s use this House for a little more than a litany of vision statements that don’t result in anything so far; let’s use this House for something that demonstrates and produces real jobs in the Northern Territory and then you might get some support from Territorians. The only thing I heard that really I saw as a new initiative was the $38 000 aquarium at the Territory Wildlife Park. They must be tiny fishes. For $38 000, is that an initiative to create jobs in the Northern Territory? Tell us another one.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, earlier this month I had the pleasure of announcing funding for the NT Shelter. The government, through Territory Housing, has funded a full time position and associated costs totalling $82 000 to NT Shelter.
The NT Shelter is a community-based housing organisation that represents housing clients in the community housing sector to government, the housing industry and the wider community. Northern Territory Shelter is a part of a nationwide network of shelters in Australia and is the peak housing body in the Northern Territory. This government, and I as Minister for Housing, are committed to the development of Territory Housing policy to improve accommodation opportunities for low income and disadvantaged housing consumers in the Northern Territory.
In supporting NT Shelter, the government recognises the importance of collaboration between government, community and private sector organisations for the provision of an improved housing service delivery for private and community housing tenancies. The ongoing contribution of NT Shelter has succeeded in bringing together government, the private sector and community organisations through housing forums. The result of these forums include improved consultative mechanisms for Territory Housing; and the development of Territory and national housing policy in the provision of housing service delivery to indigenous people, people with disabilities, seniors and youth. I am particularly pleased with the working relationship between Territory Housing and the NT Shelter to progress a number of key projects, including further housing forums with community organisations. These forums aim to improve access to affordable and appropriate housing for Territorians through community consultation.
Another important proposal is increasing sustainable tenancies for young people and the NT Shelter’s Youth Transitional Housing Project, which aims to address issues for young people moving from crisis accommodation to public housing. An additional initiative of NT Shelter is the care coordination process which focuses on providing appropriate and sustainable tenancies for public housing applicants and tenants with complex and high needs. Early intervention is important and equally so is the coordination of government agencies in providing thorough and unduplicated support to mutual clients.
Finally, in identifying one of the major obstacles for public housing tenants, NT Shelter aims to establish a financial counselling service for public housing clients. This service aims to provide public housing tenants with basic financial counselling services to better manage household budgets and meet rental payments. NT Shelter has made a significant contribution to the progress of housing issues in the Northern Territory, in particular, their commitment, support and work carried out ensuring the success of the Territory Housing Consultative Forums.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in line with the social justice principles of this government, and as Minister for Housing, I am committed to developing sound policy and improving housing services delivery to those disadvantaged and low income Territorians.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the minister’s prepared statement to this House, and recognise that he has lauded the CLP policy he has continued to support this last six months. This government, obviously, has done nothing. What other new initiatives have you brought about? Not a single new initiative have you brought about in Housing. Everything you have done so far have been initiatives of the CLP government. Have you been asleep all these last six months? Have you been asleep? Where is the minister? All he could do was read from a prepared statement about NT Shelter, which we started, we negotiated and introduced.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. Member for Greatorex, please address through the Chair. You have a point of order?
Mr STIRLING: Exactly that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased you picked it up.
Dr LIM: Mr Deputy Speaker, what I have said is that this new government, in the last six months, has only been able to continue the policies and programs that the CLP government previously introduced. For the last six months you have done nothing. This minister has been asleep. He has been asleep for the last six months and one day he is going to wake up like Rip Van Winkle and see that the world has gone past him.
I applaud what NT Shelter has done. I think it is a very good policy to bring about to assist our low income earners, our young Territorians who are struggling to find low cost housing; that is the right way to approach it. We did that during our term in government. It is now beholden on that side of the Chamber to introduce some new policies to ensure that our young Territorians, our low income earners, continue to receive support.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, the former Minister for Housing has to realise, if he was not aware of it, that on many occasions the department put up these ideas and they were rejected - rejected by the Country Liberal Party government. They were never supported. They were never supported until just before the August election it got some support, but we got into government and we allocated the money. We allocated the money. The department has advised me on many occasions that …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, your time is up.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, members on both sides of the House will be aware of recent public criticism of the Alice Springs Hospital. The truth is, this government inherited an Alice Springs Hospital in crisis. Both the Chief Minister and I have visited the Alice Springs Hospital since coming to government. We are acutely aware of the issues confronting the hospital and are determined that they are resolved.
When we came into government we found a health system where demand for services had far outstripped supply. There are resulting serious implications for our operating theatres, our emergency departments and even our intensive care units. Fortunately, our dedicated staff have coped. But this cannot continue indefinitely. For this, we could lay the blame firmly at the feet of our predecessors but that would achieve little. There are demand problems and staff shortages throughout hospitals in Australia. The health of Territorians and of their health system is too critical to be made a political football. We inherited a raft of problems and whatever may have been the case, I call on honourable members on both sides of the House to recognise this and to lend support to the well-planned and executed agenda for improvement
I would like to take this opportunity to report to the House on some of the steps that have been taken by my department to restore the community’s confidence in the Alice Springs Hospital. My department is engaged in a comprehensive hospital improvement project. The project involves a review of all public hospitals in the Northern Territory, with the fundamental objectives being to improve the quality of care in patient outcomes and clearly define the role of each hospital, and the range and level of services to be provided.
In the review of the Alice Springs Hospital, problems were identified relating to an acute shortage of nursing staff, increases in levels of activity, budget pressures, recent management changes, and the lack of strategic directions for the hospital. All of these have the potential to impact on the quality of care and levels of service. In view of these risks, a decision was made to focus attention on Alice Springs Hospital and develop strategies to place the hospital on a sound footing. The hospital is preparing for an accreditation survey by the independent Australian Council on Health Care Standards, and this will take place in August 2002.
A concerted effort is being made to increase the recruitment and retention of nurses in the Northern Territory. These initiatives include: the implementation of a new and improved nurse career structure; constant and individual contact with national nursing agencies; a preparedness to negotiate conditions for highly-skilled registered nurses; working with international agencies to facilitate immigration for approved overseas-registered nurses; ongoing general and specific advertising nationally, including electronic advertising; the recently concluded enterprise bargaining agreement which provides a recruitment package that can compete with other states; a Northern Territory recruitment and retention task force which is about to market and implement registered nurse, enrolled nurse, 75% salary funding for a clinical placement program for NT-based nurses who are no longer working as nurses, but who may wish to re-enter the nursing profession; the Alice Springs Undergraduate Nursing School which commenced this semester; and a recruitment of an initial 5.5 nurse educator positions to provide support for students, new graduates and nurses wishing to re-enter the nursing workforce.
I am aware that concern has been expressed about the quality of accommodation for nursing and medical staff employed by the Alice Springs Hospital. I am pleased to advise the House that steps are being taken to address this issue. The involvement of staff in reaching solutions is crucial. To this end, hospital management has had a series of meetings with all departments in the hospital. I assure honourable members, and the community of Alice Springs, that my department is giving the highest priority to addressing the issues at Alice Springs Hospital in a short-term way and, after stabilising the situation, will move forward within the newly developed strategic framework.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, there are a couple of points to make. The first is on the theme of: ‘This is all barley’s, please do not make it a political football’, which we have not done. This is in sharp contrast with those opposite who, on every occasion, chose to use circumstances in health to erode public confidence in some kinds of monopoly services in hospitals like Alice Springs Hospital. It is an erosion that continues, and it is now the legacy of those opposite that the thing kicked off.
The minister is saying: ‘Barley’s, please do not look there, please do not kick me around because the hospital is in crisis’. She must look there, she must visit. We have had anecdotal reports of a variety of very negative incidents, some verging of life-threatening, that have come from that hospital. I have not chosen to publicise those. In all cases, I have asked that they be brought to the attention of the minister. I hope she is aware of these. I guess the most telling example is, in a recent briefing from senior hospital staff, the intensive care unit was described as unsafe.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! We are told on one hand that these are anecdotal, so therefore …
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: … now they are being reported as fact. It is another one of his flyers.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order! Order, quiet please.
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Deputy Speaker, on three occasions when we have been given our two minutes to answer there have been frivolous points of order called. I suggest people who are unknowledgable about standing orders, read them.
The fact is this minister has no idea what is going on, she has not involved herself. There is a calamity in the making. It affects the health and wellbeing of Territorians - particularly those in Alice Springs - and it is too late to say: ‘We want to consult, and we want to talk to staff and we have all this stuff on the books’. All that stuff has been on the books since our days and it is well documented. It is not anecdotal, it is well documented. So, it is time that this minister grabbed the mettle with both hands and got on with the job.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would be happy to respond to that. First of all, I am very sorry that the honourable member was clearly not able to listen to what I was saying. In my report this morning, I made it quite clear that the health of Territorians was much more important than political point scoring. I think it is a bit sad that the members opposite feel that they have some kind of high moral ground, after 27 years in power, of having the control of this hospital. We arrived here, we have had six months in office, I get the portfolio, and I find that the hospital is in absolute crisis. We have made significant moves to turn this around and we will fix it, despite the lack of help from the opposition in terms of community support. We will fix it, what they have left for us, after 27 years.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before you start. Please make a note that because there is only two minutes to reply, can we make sure that point of orders are really points of orders, because there is not much time to reply.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I note that the timing of the responses is not as accurate as it might be either, so there is some leeway in these things.
Members of the Assembly may be aware from recent publicity that one of the world’s largest telephone sports bookmaking operations has relocated to Darwin. Sportingbet Australia Pty Ltd commenced operations at the Fannie Bay Racecourse on Thursday, 21 February, under a licence issued by the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Commission. Last year, this operation had a turnover in excess of $A500m. Sportingbet Australia Pty Ltd is a subsidiary of the UK publicly-listed company Sportingbet UK. At the same time, one of Australian’s leading Sydney’s rails bookmakers, Mr Michael Sullivan, has moved his operations to Darwin and will manage Sportingbet’s racing operations from Fannie Bay.
Sportingbet will inject funds into the Northern Territory racing industry by renting space and acquiring other ancillary services from the Darwin Turf Club, to the tune of around $150 000 per annum, and by making a $50 000 grant to assist in the provision of industry training via Centralian College based in Alice Springs. In addition, Sportingbet’s decision to operate in Darwin will create over 30 jobs locally and inject more than $1m into the Territory economy.
The relocation of Sportingbet to Darwin has already attracted criticism from industry players and ministers in New South Wales and Victoria. However, the relocation means that those Australians who have, in the last years, been betting significant amounts of money offshore with sport bookmakers operating in places such as Vanuatu, can now place their bets legally onshore in a properly regulated environment. Moreover, Sportingbet’s move to Australia means the benefits that the business generates will no longer be lost to overseas. The relocation of Sportingbet has been welcomed by other sports bookmakers in the Territory. Noted Alice Springs bookmaker, Terry Lillis is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald last Friday saying that: ‘The new mob strengthens the Territory which is now the home of offcourse betting’. The Northern Territory government endorses those sentiments.
However, the Northern Territory government has adopted a careful and thorough approach to the licensing of Sportingbet operations here in the Territory. Sportingbet acquired the Vanuatu operation, known as Number One Betting Shop, in March 2001. A sports bookmaker license has been issued to Sportingbet on the condition it not engage or employ the former owner of Number One Betting Shop, Alan Tripp, who has been convicted in Australia of SP bookmaking offences. The condition requires that Mr Tripp, or his associates, not become a material shareholder in the company or associated companies. ‘Material shareholder’ is defined as a person owning or controlling, whether directly or indirectly, at least 5% of the issued shares with an entitlement to vote. The license so issued requires the operator to advise of any changes to the management or ownership of the company, subject to ongoing and extensive probity checks by officers of my department.
The Northern Territory government has also taken steps to address the long-standing call by punters and Territory bookmakers to make the Territory’s turnover tax more competitive with other jurisdictions. From 1 March 2002, the government will reduce the rate of turnover tax for racing contingencies. The racing rates are as follows: for registered oncourse bookmakers - 1% of turnover, no allowance for GST; for sports bookmakers - 1.55% of turnover less a credit for the applicable GST.
From 1 March 2002, a single rate of 0.33% will apply to all bookmakers for their racing contingencies. There is no allowance for GST or betbacks unless placed through the Northern Territory TAB. This new rate will be paid by all bookmakers operating in the Territory and is in line with the lowest equivalent rate paid by bookmakers elsewhere in Australia, being a club levy paid to the major clubs in Queensland as the lowest existing rate prior to our change.
Under the new tax rate, and because of the substantial increase in the volume of turnover brought about the arrival of Sportingbet, the Territory government revenue derived from turnover tax is expected to increase by around $1m per year. The more competitive tax rate enhances the Territory’s prospects of attracting other new operators which will bring further economic benefits and greater flows of tax revenue and industry assistance to the Northern Territory.
The government will also take steps to remove the current legislative restriction against bookmakers offering winnings based on final totalisator dividends. This will enable bookmakers to promote more flexible wagering products to punters.
The announcement is a welcome boost to the local racing industry, which is in turn, a major contributor to the Territory’s economy. We can, and do, expect further flack from our southern neighbours over the arrival of Sportingbet in Darwin, but I believe we have achieved a major win for the racing industry in the Northern Territory. I was particularly pleased with the positive feedback I received from the former member for Sanderson on radio last week about this initiative. I look forward to opposition support on this matter. I believe some steps were taken by our predecessors down this path. I look forward to, as in my time as racing and licencing shadow minister, generally a bipartisan approach to these matters in the House.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I welcomed the news when I heard of Sportingbet.com coming to the Northern Territory and the decrease in taxation rates. As the minister has highlighted, there was much work done on this, as I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House know. I know that I have talked personally with the minister on this very matter and that it was just a matter of selecting the right taxation rates and how to deal with GST and bet packs. I congratulate the minister for making the right decision. I believe this is the first of a number of large organisations that wish to relocate to the Northern Territory and I am sure the minister would confirm that there others in the wing that would like to do likewise.
It is ironic that now the minister will feel the wrath of his colleagues down south, his Labor Party colleagues, one in particular, Mr Richard Face from New South Wales, who will leave no stone unturned to try to convince the minister now to change his mind. But it is interesting that when the Northern Territory changes its tax rates, or indeed lowers its minimum telephone betting limits, that apart from all the noise you hear around Australia about doom and gloom to the racing industry, they immediately do one thing and that is start to lower their tax rates. New South Wales is moving today, or this very week, to lower their rates as far as bookmakers go and they have done a lot of things in terms of telephone betting. A lot of huff and puff from those but, as I said, ironic that there now will be this Labor minister who will cop that wrath from his colleagues.
I am glad to hear that Alan Tripp will have no material interest in any of the operations of Sportingbet.com. It will be interesting to see the revenue that is earned from this new company coming on board. I certainly wish them every success.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition spokesman for his words of support. We do appreciate the work that the former government put into these arrangements before we were elected in August last year. It certainly helped to bring about a fairly speedy resolution of outstanding matters to enable us to get Sportingbet in a position to be licensed and up and operating.
I, of course, read, as other members may have, some of the comments by Mr Face in New South Wales and Mr Hulls in Victoria. And can I just say, I look forward to the first ministerial racing summit. I hope it is the first ministerial council that I get to. I think it is set down for May and I really look forward to it.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order
Continued from 28 November 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I put on the record I appreciate the time and effort the minister’s office gave in the detailed briefing I received, and also the assistance from the department in providing me with some details and background relating to this legislation.
The proposed amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act is a result of a decision handed down by our Supreme Court, the decision of Pinecot Pty Ltd v Anti-Discrimination Commission case. In substance, the anomaly created by the Supreme Court is dealt with quite clearly and succinctly in the section 105(1) and (2). In that regard, the government is to be commended for promptly dealing with this anomaly as it arose and responding in such a way to clarify the vicarious liability aspect of the Anti-Discrimination Act.
In my view, the difficulty arises with the extra steps that the government saw fit to include in the amendment, that is subparagraph (3) and subparagraph (4). At common law - and there is lots of law about the term ‘or reasonable steps’ and in other jurisdictions that particular provision exists. The commissioner, or if it is on an appeal, the magistrate of a court of competent jurisdiction, will have regard to what he thinks are a number of reasonable criteria to determine whether the employer took all reasonable steps and if all reasonable steps were taken then, of course, there is a situation where an employer can avoid the impost of having to pay compensation or comply with an order from the commissioner. That is what occurs in most of the other jurisdictions. There is lots of law on this phrase, ‘all reasonable steps’; there are lots of indicia which are considered in determining whether that employer has done ‘all reasonable steps’.
In our proposed legislation which the government has tabled in serial 28, presented to this parliament by the Attorney-General, the government has sought to place more emphasis on a number of the criteria, some of which will already have been considered by the commissioner or by a court of competent jurisdiction determining what ‘all reasonable steps’ would be.
The phraseology used in subparagraph (3) - and this is the first of a number of concerns which I have - talks about ‘without limiting the matters which can be considered’; there is no problem with that. There is a specific direction here that a number, or to use the terminology in the legislation, the following matters ‘are to be considered’. So there is a requirement here; they must be considered. Approval of that subsection talks about the provision of anti-discrimination training by the person; the development and implementation of an equal employment opportunity management plan by the person - and person here means a business; the publication of an anti-discrimination policy by the person; fourthly, the financial circumstances of the person; and lastly, the number of workers and agents of the person.
I can put on the record this side of the House certainly has no difficulties with subparagraphs (d) and (e). The difficulty arises, in my view, in the consideration of the requirement of the commissioner or the court to specifically consider the first three of those limbs.
The practical effect of this type of amendment will be that the court or the commissioner will now expect, in my view, a small or medium sized business that operates in Winnellie to have considered the provision of anti-discrimination training and expect them to have developed and implemented an equal employment opportunity management plan. Now, I accept there is a reference there specifically to the number of workers, but nevertheless we have the situation where the legislature has set up the parameters of what the court, or what the commission, should take into account. More specifically, there is certainly more than an implied direction that a small or medium sized business will have to run the gauntlet of satisfying those criteria to avoid liability for a recalcitrant employee.
Subparagraph (4) is a provision unknown in other jurisdictions and, indeed, the government is to be commended in part for this particular provision, however, it does not go far enough. The provision relates to if there is a finding that an employer or business is to pay compensation - that is, an employee has breached a provision of the act and the employer is vicariously liable for that conduct and the employer was not able to establish that all reasonable steps had been taken, the next step is that the commissioner or the court of competent jurisdiction then considers what amount of compensation should then be ordered against the particular employer. This provision requires the commissioner to take into account a number of important matters in determining the quantum of that compensation. The one particular provision which is missing, and which is of a real concern, is a provision which enables the commission or the court to look closely at the effect which that order will have on the financial viability of the business.
In the committee stage I will be introducing an amendment by way of an extra subparagraph to subsection (4). That has been effectively lifted, almost word perfect, from the provisions that are contained in the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The reason we have suggested it is that the body of law which has already built up and has been used by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to interpret the particular phraseology can also be used by the commission in determining what factors to take into account. There is a real need, in my view, for the effect of the order for compensation on the viability of the employer’s undertaking, establishment or service to be included in this provision which is unknown in other jurisdictions.
The government is to be commended in one sense for its prompt response to dealing with the anomaly raised in Pinecot’s case and that is really confined to section 105(1) and (2). However, by attempting to particularise what considerations should be taken into account and then going to particularise exactly what consideration should be taken into account in determining the quantum of compensation, they have gone too far. It is an impost on small business; it is a burden which struggling small businesses should not have to bear, particularly at a time when things are not going perhaps as well as they should be. In our view, the provisions in subsection (3) and subsection (4) have not been properly thought out and are ill-conceived.
The clerk in charge of bills has already distributed some amendments which I instructed Parliamentary Counsel to prepare. At the committee stage I will go through and amplify each and every one of those points.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, noting the comments that the shadow Attorney-General has made, and also what I believe indicates clearly there are problems with this legislation, could I say two things: that the opposition strongly supports anything that is done by government to increase the information and education to employers to prevent discriminatory practices in the workplace. That is, without question, something that we support. But the issues with this legislation to my mind in its present format create more problems than necessary for the government this time. We can proceed with the legislation with the opposition’s support perhaps if section 3 is changed from ‘are’ to ‘may’ in terms of: ‘issues that may be considered’ in the legislation. But what I would suggest to you is this: why is it necessary to pass the legislation today? I understand the Chamber of Commerce and Industry have been …
Ms Martin: How many months do you need?
Dr Toyne: We introduced it in November.
Mr BURKE: Just listen to me. I understand the Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been briefed on the legislation by yourself and I understand that they have indicated support. I also know that they have had further briefings by the shadow Attorney-General and have expressed similar concerns to the ones that he has raised.
I also say to the government that there are a whole range of small businesses that are not members of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and they are the ones that we are particularly concerned about. For example, the Palmerston Regional Business Association has 200 members and not one of them knows about this legislation. What you are setting up is a situation where the reaction to your legislation will be, in its present format, that there will be an unacceptable additional impost put on small business by the way the legislation currently reads. To a layman with a small business employing a small number of employees - and you must know a number of them - you read this legislation that ‘the court is to take into account the following matters that are to be considered …’ and it goes through the provision of anti-discrimination training by the person, the development and implementation of equal employment opportunity management plan by the person, the publication of anti-discrimination policy by the person, etcetera.
The first reaction you are going to get from small businessmen who are facing increasing costs because of insurance premiums and other is that this will create an unacceptable cost impost to them and their businesses. If you want to steamroll this legislation through, you obviously have the numbers. What I am suggesting to you is that you consult further with business - in the first instance you could consult with Palmerston Regional Business Association - get these issues clarified and then proceed with the legislation at a later time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I cannot support the bill in its …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am getting tired of the actions and frivolousness and childish behaviour of the member for Sanderson in this Chamber. I would ask him to treat this Chamber and you with the respect that you deserve. It is not a football match.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Sanderson must realise that if he gets the call from the Chair, he may continue but, in that case, I did not see you, you were not on your feet quickly and the member for Araluen got the call so then you have to accept that. The member for Araluen has the call.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, as I said, I cannot support the bill having regard to the cost and inconvenience the bill, in its present form, will occasion or cause to small business owners. I agree absolutely with anti-discrimination legislation. I agree absolutely that government should lead the way to try to encourage employers to train their staff; as a fundamental proposition that is desirable in any jurisdiction in the country.
Having said that, the difficulty with this present legislation is that it makes life for small business owners incredibly difficult. The Attorney-General knows, or at least should know and should have been advised, that the matters contained in subsection 3(a) to (c) of the proposed section 105 go much further than this legislation necessitates. I would, with respect, ask him why this proposed legislation goes much further than it needs to? Why is it that this proposed legislation goes further than anywhere else in the country? My view is that the other governments in the country, the other Labor governments, have been more receptive to the needs and wishes of business than this government.
There is no doubt that the decision of Pinecot required legislative action and I note that the former government had intended to introduce very similar legislation. What the former government did not propose to do was to include subsections (a) to (c) of subsection (3), section 105. In the event that this legislation gets up and, of course we know it will, business community and in particular small business will be open-mouthed and very angry and the government will be condemned accordingly. Now it is all very well to say that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been consulted but, as the member for Brennan said earlier, the fact of the matter is that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry does not comprise every business operation in the Northern Territory.
I have checked in particular on the requirement of subsection (a), that is the provision of anti-discrimination training by the employer. My inquiries have revealed that the cost of a training package is $77 per employee and that the courses are organised by the Anti-Discrimination Commission. For an employer, a small business with say 10 employees, that means a yearly cost presumably of $770. For a larger business, let’s say with 100, that is a cost of $7700. Now the government might not be moved by those costs in particular, but when one considers that the training must apply to each employee, we need to pause and reflect on the transient nature of the Territory population and the Territory workforce. That means that a medium sized business can expect to pay $77 per employee as often as two to three times a month.
That is not a cost that business can afford …
Mr Kiely: I don’t think everyone in the NT Public Service has gone through training, do you?
Ms CARNEY: Well, you wouldn’t know, you have never been in private enterprise, have you?
Moreover, the time and resources spent on developing the Equal Opportunity Management Plan will make the lives of those in private enterprise much too difficult. What this government does not understand is that business already has a large number of demands on it and in the case of, for instance, a husband and wife business, or a family business, they do not have human resource managers. They do not have personnel departments and the husbands and wives will be the ones who will need to spend their time ensuring that they comply with subsections (a) to (c). It will fall to one person in a two or three person business whose time and energy, quite frankly, would be much better spent earning the money for the business and developing the business.
The matters I have mentioned, explain the thrust of the opposition’s objection to this bill, although we do quite rightly accept that limited liability for employers is a good idea and that of itself would be welcomed by business if done right. This bill that the government has produced has simply gone about it in the wrong way and the government has obviously, with respect, not thought through the consequences of this bill. I strongly urge the government to go back to the drawing board and come back with something better.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, the background to this legislation also is interesting. It came into force in 1992 and around that time all other jurisdictions also brought in anti-discrimination, or racial discrimination, or sexual discrimination acts. The difference between other jurisdictions and our jurisdiction was that the then government refused to put in a vicarious liability clause. Ten years ago it was argued in this place that such a clause should go in. It was: ‘Oh no, no, - we will take a suck it and see. We will come in with some half-baked legislation and we will put that in and we won’t worry about it. We will just go along with it’.
Well, a decade ago, Labor saw the flaw in this and it has come back now to haunt you. It has come back now to haunt the hardworking business people of this Territory, the ones who you purport to be trying to protect from overcharging and onerous trading duties.
Mr Burke: How? How?
Mr KIELY: Well, it is back now in the Pinecot decision and we are addressing it. We are the party that is going to look after small business. Not you lot who, for 10 years screwed them into the wall with inadequate legislation. With legislation that comes back to haunt them and now they are in a situation where they don’t know, if something goes wrong in the workplace they will be held responsible and they have no coverage. No coverage, and that’s thanks to you lot. We are going to fix that now, we are going to fix that with this amending legislation.
Mr Burke: You don’t even know the Pinecot judgment, do you? You don’t know the Pinecot judgment, you idiot!
Mr KIELY: The Supreme Court action of Pinecot v Anti-Discrimination Commission has established now in the presumption that the existing Anti-Discrimination Act does not implicitly provide for vicarious liability.
While we are talking about it, let’s go on about vicarious liability. When the law imposes vicarious liability on a person, that person is held responsible for the misconduct of another person because of their relationship. Vicarious liability provisions, which are soon to be incorporated into the Anti-Discrimination Act, is a kind of strict liability because there need not be proof of personal wrongdoing on the part of the person on what vicarious liability is imposed. So vicarious liability means simply ‘the buck stops here’. In any work situation someone is in charge. That person is responsible for the actions of the employees or people being supervised. What our legislation does is give protection for the employer. The employer, who you are so happily trying to screw to the wall, cause extra money to, which you have done over the years, which you seem to do willy-nilly and then try and say that you are the party that looks after private enterprise!
Let me tell you what has been happening in the last 10 years and this furphy about everyone having training that has been spread about by the CLP. Over the last 10 years I have been a HR practitioner in a number of jurisdictions under a number of different acts, and I have had cause to sit there and have people come to me and talk to me about things that have happened in the workplace. I have had cause to be involved in cases where people have feigned discrimination. We have managed through n these cases and they have been complex. They have been brought about by one person in the workplace attributing some action to their supervisor, and I have seen it, where the supervisor has said: ‘Well, I didn’t know what was going on, no one had told me’. What has occurred there is that the solicitors have got in on the act and said: ‘Beauty, we will join the employer. We will join the employer in this because they didn’t know about the vicarious liability provision because they weren’t written in there’. And these things have been settled before they get to court because this big stick is there, and what has happened is that this is costing small companies money because they do not know about it.
It is costing government money because they would rather go this way of not going to court. They would rather settle out and go to the vicarious liability provision, because they don’t exist because there is no defence at the moment. What we are out to do is, is make it clear to employers about what their liabilities are under the Anti-Discrimination Act as employers.
Insofar as the opposition’s remarks about the proposed amendments to section 105(3), well, 105(3) takes up concerns expressed by the employers but it can be difficult to show that they have taken all reasonable steps, that it can be difficult to show, so we are making it clear for them. We are setting a clear field for them to act in.
The subsection sets out criteria to be considered in determining whether all reasonable steps have been taken. It sets it out for them, no more interpretations by slippery lawyers, no more interpretations by slippery opposition. It allows for the consideration of the individual position of each employer, their financial circumstances and number of employees. This subsection is unique in Australia. It ensures that all reasonable steps to defence is a real defence. That is a real one that can be used by employers who have used reasonable diligence to develop anti-discrimination policies and procedures. It furthers the objects of the act by encouraging its employees to make their workplaces discrimination free. It rewards employers who take such steps.
In researching the subject of vicarious liability, I went onto the Internet and I had a look at the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They had a little something to say about small business. This is one of the so-called constituencies that our learned friends across the hallway here seem to want to say that they represent, but who they continuously have screwed to the wall and have cost money through their inaction and poor laws. The group that they say they want to help out, the group that they say will have to train every member of their staff up on anti-discrimination laws - which they know is a complete and utter falsehood. The NT Public Service with something like 15 000 employees does not send all their employees away. It makes sure that those people who are in charge are aware of the acts and the employment regulations their people work under, as I am sure all good employees do, as I am sure every small businessman knows when they hire someone. They know the cost, they know what is required, they do not need these falsehoods that you lot put around.
Getting back to small business, it says here that: ‘It may not be necessary for an employer of a small workforce to implement the type of formal processes described above’. I put this in relation to the part about the provision of the development and implementation of an equal employment opportunity management plan. It does not have to be all formalised out in contracts, it can be a statement. It puts into place an effective, informal mechanism to prevent and correct harassment. A small employer, if they put in a small plan, will satisfy this act.
It goes on to say that: ‘An owner of a small business who regularly meets with all of his or her employees might tell them at monthly staff meetings that he or she will not tolerate harassment and anyone who experiences harassment should bring it straight to the top’. That is what this act is all about. This is what this vicarious liability is all about. It is about meeting with your staff and telling them about acceptable codes of behaviour in the workplace and …
Ms Carter: You’ll rue the day!
Mr KIELY: Yes. You should tell your employers - and this is all I ask for - is to tell them about acceptable codes of behaviour and the consequences of not following that. Now, you are there once again saying this will cost money. Insurance is going through the roof, stress claims are going through the roof, discrimination claims get some of the biggest claims and they get up, and when they get up, your liability, it all goes up, the whole lot. Everything goes up, the rates of insurance that you have to pay.
This legislation will help employers bring in plans that will actually, I believe, bring down their insurance premiums over time. This bill will help people save money. This bill will make a safer working place for the people. But no, you wish to bring it back 10 years again. You wish to drive small business into the ground. You are not the party for small business. We are the party for the people. We are the party who will make this place a better place.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise also to contribute to this debate and I start at the outset by pointing out to honourable members in this House that the member for Sanderson’s contribution was, I think, some five times longer than the second reading debate itself. I think that many of the problems that we have with this type of legislation could be vastly improved if that 45 minutes allocated for a second reading speech was used more judiciously.
We had lectures about getting briefings from the honourable ministry opposite, in relation to what happens with the bills that they bring before this House. But surely, I suggest to the honourable members opposite, the most important briefing is the one that they give to us, as well as the one that they give to the judiciary who turn to the second reading debates when they are seeking some sort of interpretative guidance as to how to read the legislation that this House produces.
I do not believe it would be an unreasonable request of the minister to use more than a couple of minutes of his 45 minutes available to him, to brief us properly in relation to all of the issues that surround legislation like this. Indeed, on this occasion, once again, because of the brevity of the second reading speech by the Attorney-General, needless to say, once I had read the legislation for it and found a couple of errors, just typographical errors, which indicates to me that he has not been particularly thorough about it in his approach, on 14 December, I asked him specific questions which, I believe, should have been picked up in the second reading speech.
He did reply to me some six weeks later and just a little less than a month ago, in relation to the issues that I raised. I am grateful to the honourable minister for his kind attentions in relation to it, albeit they a little bit late. It is interesting that, for the first time, the minister actually raises the issue of Pinecot which was the catalyst - the decision by Justice Mildren which was the catalyst - for the proposed changes to the legislation that he has brought in this House. Indeed, I then returned to the second reading speech and I find it curious that what he said to this House and what has actually occurred in fact, appear to be two different things. I go to the second reading speech where the Attorney-General says: ‘However, recent litigation in the Supreme Court has called this assumption into doubt’. The assumption, of course, that the Attorney-General was referring to, was the assumption of vicarious liability.
That is the topic which is mostly hotly under debate today. It is curious that the Attorney-General seems to be at odds with the member for Sanderson over the issue of vicarious liability, because the member for Sanderson is under the impression that we are trying to introduce vicarious liability, and the Attorney-General is suggesting that the assumption in the courts is under doubt.
The truth of the matter is that the member for Sanderson is correct. It is the Attorney-General who was incorrect. There is no doubt about the issue of vicarious reliability …
Mr Stirling: Liability!
Mr ELFERINK: Liability. I turn to the decision by Justice Mildren, and I am certain that the member for Sanderson has read this particular decision from cover to cover, as I am certain that the honourable minister has done. I look forward to him telling us in this House that he has read this decision before bringing this bill before the House.
I turn to the decision by Justice Mildren. Justice Mildren says, at page 27 of his decision, that action of vicarious liability is an action in tort, and I quote from paragraph 38:
In my opinion, the act does not create a cause of action in tort, although it may create statutory entitlement
to damages that falls short of constituting a cause of action. As I have said, the remedies provided for by the
act are not able to be pursued in a court of law and the commission is not a court. There is no other indication
to be found in the act that the remedy is tortious in nature.
I then go a little bit further into the paragraph and I quote again:
He then goes on, on page 30, to make a comment about the true construction of the act, and I quote again:
The act only provides for the liability of others where the person concerned causes, instructs, incites, assists
or promotes another to contravene the act: see s27(1). In such a case, that person becomes jointly and severally
liable with the principal contravener (s27(2)). It would have been a simple matter for the legislature to have
expressly provided for the liability of principals or corporation for the acts of their servants or agents. They did
not do so and I think that in the circumstances it must be inferred that the omission to do so was deliberate.
Indeed, the suggestion by the member for Sanderson is that that was indeed the case, is that the parliament deliberately chose, originally, not to introduce the tortuous nature of vicarious liability. Whatever reason they chose to do so, that was the act of parliament at the time. So for the Attorney-General to come into this Chamber and suggest that there is something that has been called into doubt, I believe, is quite incorrect. That then raises a question as to what exactly the Attorney-General and the Northern Territory government are trying to do in this Chamber.
Madam Speaker, the answer can be found, or at least started to be found, in the second page of the letter which I received from the Attorney-General some six weeks after I wrote him the original letter:
Unlike legislation in other jurisdictions, more meaning is given to these defences through the inclusion of indicia as
to what constitutes all reasonable steps. The NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry were consulted in the
development of this bill and I understand support its passage.
The question is, what exactly did the NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry think that they were supporting? This approach by the Attorney-General to introduce social legislation, which is his entire right and the right of the government for the day to introduce what legislation they see fit, is an attempt to dress it up as something that it is not. The Attorney-General says in his second reading speech about the defences that the acts create, and the defences are outlined in the bill under section 105(3). That outlines a list of five offences or reasonable steps which the court may turn its attention to in an effort to provide defences for a person who stands accused under the legislation, thus introducing the concept of vicarious liability to the act. It is not clearing up a doubt. It is changing the act in such a way as to actually introduce the concept which is new. The member for Sanderson was quite correct in the way that he read the bill before this House.
If I turn to Justice Mildren, His Honour points out the liability of the company by one of its agents is entirely possible where the agent itself is acting in such a way as to be representative of the company and there is no difference between the agent and the company in any practical sense. The separation of a person who is engaged in a frolic of his own was in the contemplation of the original drafters of this legislation and was within the contemplation of the parliament itself. So, what we have is a smoke and mirrors approach. The government goes to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and says: ‘We have this great piece of legislation. Unfortunately, this vicarious liability thing has come under some doubt in the Supreme Court. But don’t worry. We are going to fix your problems for you with this neat little piece of legislation here. We are going to fix it, it will all be right, she’ll be sweet’. We have heard from the member for Sanderson that that seems to be the intention. The fact is that they are introducing a new liability on business here in the Northern Territory through the process that they have chosen to pursue. That’s fine, that’s within their right to do so.
But it is incumbent on a government when it is dealing with Territorians to be honest and forthright with those Territorians. If the government wants to introduce new legislation and create a new situation where there is vicarious liability, then they should just come out and say so: ‘This is something new that we are going to do and these are the barbs and these are the defences. This is where the hairs are on it. These are the advantages’, and at least outline exactly what they intend to do. But the reason that they have chosen to be a little bit slippery about this, I believe can be found in section 105(3) in the proposed bill: ‘For the purposes of subsection (2) and without limiting the matters that may be taken into account in determining whether a person has taken all reasonable steps the following matters are to be considered …’. It then goes on to those lists of so-called defences that the minister has presented to this House. Indeed the paragraph starts ‘Without limiting the matters that may be taken into account …’. So I can draw, as a court, on a whole body of common law and turn my attention to that common law dealing with the issue of all reasonable steps.
But this parliament and this government when it pushes this bill through, or attempts to push this bill through, will be saying to the courts the next time that they have such an issue in front of them: ‘You will turn your attention specifically to these areas. It is the parliament’s intention that you as a judge study these specific areas and then you can look at the other issues of all reasonable steps’.
Now, this is a piece of social legislation. It is not just a small amendment to a bill. It is not a reaching to get something right as the Attorney-General would have had us believe in his all too brief second reading speech. The thing that I request the Attorney-General and the government of the day to do is that if they are going to hold true to their political beliefs about the rights of the workers and those sorts of things, that’s fine. I have no objection to them doing so. They are the elected government of the day. However, I say this: at least be honest, open and forthright about the approach you are taking and do not try and sneak in through a back door legislation which is far more sweeping than the government has indicated to any of the people concerned. When those people started to realise, after a bit of investigation, how sweeping and what sort of an effect this sort of legislation has had, I understand from my colleagues that the response has been somewhat different to: ‘Oh yeah, we can go along with that. Thanks for doing us a favour’.
In its current form I cannot bring myself to support this. I have discussed the amendments that the shadow Attorney-General is bringing forward. I think that they are reasonable amendments and I ask the Attorney-General to turn a benevolent eye upon those amendments in an effort to reconcile some of these issues.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that I have received a letter from the member for Greatorex, pursuant to Standing Order 83, in which he raises a matter of privilege and seeking precedence of other business for the purposes of moving a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
In considering the matter, I sought further detail as to the matter which Dr Lim considered constituted an alleged contempt. Dr Lim has provided me with further detail. I advise this Assembly that I have considered Dr Lim’s request and taken into account the guidelines provided for me by resolution of the Assembly dated 23 May 1996.
I have determined the motion should be given precedence of other business tomorrow.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak on the bill before the House, the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 2001. As the minister has previously stated in this House in his second reading speech, this amendment will clarify the existence of vicarious liability under the principal act, a simple principal.
As many of the members in this House would acknowledge, Justice Mildren in his decision in Pinecot Pty Ltd v Anti-Discrimination Commission, determined there was no vicarious liability under the Anti-Discrimination Act. This bill, under section 105, clarifies the existence of vicarious liability of employees and agents. This amendment is required as it is now unclear how, under existing provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act, liability for actions of employers operate.
Due to the recent Supreme Court action in Pinecot Pty Ltd v Anti-Discrimination Commission, a shadow has been cast on the presumption that the existing Anti-Discrimination Act did implicitly provide for vicarious liability. It has been accepted by both public sector and private sector employees that they operated their general business on the presumption that the act the existence of vicarious liability. It has become obvious to one and all that Justice Mildren in the Pinecot case found the act did not include vicarious liability for employers. This Labor government has taken positive steps in the amendment to safeguard all the employers and employees. This fact is important to all Territorians as good law and good legislation is fundamental to the principles that support our democracy in a unique and diverse community.
At present, as a result of the Pinecot case and the current appeal to the Federal Court, the situation is still unclear. Therefore, the principles that Territory employers and employees believed were contained within the Anti-Discrimination Act, that incorporated the principles of vicarious liability with respect to sex, race and disability discrimination, have become unclear. The bill will clarify that matter in a fair and just manner, protecting the rights of both the employer and employee. Subsection (2) of the proposed new section 105 requires an employer to take all reasonable steps in order to have a defence for a vicarious liability. This same or similar provision exists in anti-discrimination legislation in all other Australian jurisdictions.
This government has taken up concerns with section 105(3) of the large and small employers that may have difficulty in showing they have taken reasonable steps to protect themselves. As the minister has alluded to, the subsection is unique in Australia. Its effect is to create a real difference to employers who have used reasonable diligence to develop anti-discrimination policies and procedures. It also gives consideration to the individual position of each employer, their financial circumstances and the number of employees. So, like many members of this House, I believe prevention is better than cure. Section 105(3) encourages employers to make their workplace discrimination free. It clearly rewards employers who take such positive steps.
Another example of this government’s agenda to lead by example is the proposed section 105(4) which is a further innovation in Australia’s anti-discrimination law. It allows the commission to apportion the payment of compensation between employer and worker after hearing what steps were taken to prevent the prohibited conduct. Under proposed section 105(4) it allows the commissioner to take into account what steps an employer did take even if these steps were not sufficient to create a full defence under proposed section 105(2).
In summary, I and other members of this government look forward to continuing the steps taken by the minister in creating goodwill for the benefit for all Territorians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I came here today supporting the direction in which this bill has been put forward but, having listened to the debate, I do have some concerns.
I had some discussions with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry when I was investigating ramifications of this bill and I presumed, talking to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, that I was actually also covering all business associations, but obviously that has not occurred. I am concerned that if business associations – because, after all, this affects employers -have not had adequate time to discuss this bill, then we should perhaps allow this bill to sit for a bit longer because they are the people in the end who are going to have to use this bill.
I will just make a few points. I suppose one of my favourite topics is bills that you cannot read and the phrase ‘vicarious liability’ took me a fair while to understand. As it is aimed at people like employers, I sometimes wonder why - I know lawyers love these words and there have been books written on vicarious liability - why we could not just use the terminology ‘substituted liability’ which is what ‘vicarious’ really means. It is not a common term and I think that sometimes laws, where they are being applied to certain groups of people, at least should be readable by those certain groups of people.
An issue that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry also raised was that in section 105(2), they did have concerns about the words ‘all reasonable steps’ and that also occurs in (3). They were concerned that the word ‘all’ could be taken as ad infinitum. They would have preferred just ‘reasonable steps’.
I also take into account - the opposition raised the issue of, I think in subsection (3) - that the words ‘the following matters are to be considered’ to be perhaps ‘may be considered’. First of all, most people would agree that we should have no discrimination in the workforce. It is a matter of how we put that into a document, in legislation, that covers that as well as does not impose great burdens especially on small business.
I suppose I have had the opportunity of working for myself so the only person I can discriminate against is myself so it did not matter. But I also worked in local hardware for about 14 years so I have worked under a boss, and working on the Litchfield Shire Council, I was the boss. So I have had fair range of the different ways one can be employed. Certainly with small business which only have a few people, and especially where businesses are flat out - for instance, in the hardware business where I worked, you would work from approximately 8.15 in the morning until about a 6.15 in the evening with very few breaks. A lot of these nice things written in here you certainly never had time for, and you worked seven days a week because that was the sort of industry it was.
I am not sure there are any guarantees in here for small business, if a matter went to court, that they could be hauled over the coals for some of these things. I know it deals with the number of workers and agents of the person, the financial circumstances, but much of that is up for interpretation. For that reason I think this should go back to those people who have to use it, bearing in mind that both sides support the concept that there should not be discrimination in the workforce. But, as I said, the employers are the ones who are going to have to deal with this and, if we have lived this long without these changes, I would ask the government would they consider perhaps delaying it until the next sitting of parliament.
I do make the point that just because the Chamber of Commerce and Industry had not passed this on does not mean that members do not have a responsibility to pass this act on to business associations and to employers. I think that perhaps some of us have let our local business associations down by not making them aware that this bill was going before parliament. We all have a responsibility on any act where we know that that act will affect people in our community. We should really take it to those people and ask them for their opinion. I cannot necessarily go out and blame the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I just say that in this case some of our members of parliament perhaps did not quite do their job in the sense of taking this to those various groups and making them aware.
Madam Speaker, bearing in mind I support the direction in which it is going, I just feel at the moment that it needs some more discussion and I would ask the government to defer it until that discussion is held.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I participate in this debate on behalf of the business community, particularly the small business community of the Northern Territory. The member for Nelson should not be too apologetic if he believes that he may have been able to better represent the business community. And he would have been able to had the second reading speech in relation to this legislation been a clear statement of intent of the legislation. If you now read the second reading speech, it is almost impossible – well, it is impossible - to extract from the second reading speech the real extent of this legislation. That is to say there is no clear statement in the second reading speech as to the impact that this legislation will have on the small business community.
From the Parliamentary Record of 27 to 29 November, page 453, I quote:
Now, there is nothing in the second reading speech from the minister to suggest that this is going to impact on small business and in future, if this legislation is passed, that small business will have to do all those things as set out in the subsection. It has only been of recent times that the real impact on small business has come to light. Indeed, can I say that that is not conclusive even in terms of the legislation. I quote from the bill, vicarious liability, section 105(2),:
and then (3):
Now, they are matters that can be taken into consideration, but it does not say that that is the extent of the matters that may be taken into consideration. Nor does it say the extent and effort which any particular business has to put into those particular points. That is to say, a business may well indeed establish a process or develop and implement an equal opportunity management plan, but no business is going to know whether that plan or the other actions that they take so prescribed in this bill are going to be adequate until after the event. That is to say, the business will be in trouble before they know whether or not the actions that they have taken have been adequate or will be considered to be adequate by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and others in the event that something occurs.
It is all a very flowery process that the government is proposing here. I understand that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry has accepted these, although they have some shortcomings as the member for Nelson and others have alluded to. It concerns me that the Chamber, on behalf of small business in the Northern Territory, if they have supported this legislation, because in my discussions with small businesses over the past week in relation to this, I did not find anyone, any small business, that was happy with it. Either the Chamber has been unable to convey the message adequately to its members because of the inadequacy of the information provided by the government or, indeed, it has fallen short on its job. I must say that it does not seem to do that very often on behalf of its members, but I could understand why they may have done it on this occasion.
This legislation in my view, and that of small business in the Northern Territory, is part of the social agenda of this government of which we will see much over the next few years and which will impact very considerably not only on the business community of the Northern Territory but indeed on all aspects of life in the Northern Territory. But that is life under a Labor government, and this government has the ability and responsibility, indeed, in terms of its own being to proceed with those agendas. But it does not mean that in this case the business community should accept them as presented. The clear message from the business community is that they do not accept this and you can see why.
The other component of this legislation, and getting back to the second reading speech, is that apart from the particular case that is before courts, and the first components of this bill are aimed at addressing, and which the opposition generally supports, there is no reason for proceeding with the other components in terms of subsection (3) in the proposed new section 105. There is no assertion in the second reading speech, or no reason in the second reading speech, as to why these components are considered necessary. What’s broken? What has to be fixed apart from addressing the social agenda of the Labor government? And if that is their intent and their desire, well so be it, they are in government, but express it - express it openly. They are a government that in opposition said that they would be open, honest and accountable to the people of the Northern Territory. In that regard, if they are going to introduce social reforms of this kind then it is appropriate that they should, in second reading speeches and other documentation that they use to advise Territorians about legislation which they are introducing and intending to pass in this House, be open, honest and accountable with people, and particularly the business community.
We heard from a government backbencher just before lunch that the government is supportive of small business and that they have the concerns of small business in mind and that they want to help them. Well, this will not help small business. The costs will be considerable, and if you look at those in terms of training every employee, look at it in the context of a butcher shop, any retail trader, I suppose, who employs four or five people. How many hundreds of those are there across the Northern Territory who will, in future, have to provide a training program for each and every employee? Again, the vagueness of this second reading speech and the intentions of the government in this regard don’t help. Does that pertain to part time and casual employees, or does it only pertain to full time employees? What is the extent of the impost in that regard to those employers? The other aspects that are considered to be matters that could assist a business if they come into problems, the financial circumstances. Well, what are the financial circumstances?
Madam Speaker, either you say that the financial circumstances of a business, if they were confronted by the application of this legislation and the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner came along and said: ‘I want to assess your business in relation to compliance with this piece of legislation’, then you get down to part (d), the financial circumstances of the person or of the business. How is that assessed? Under whose assessment and criteria are those considerations undertaken and decided upon? Because, I dare say, you would find a vast difference of opinion between the person in the legislation and the commissioner, who would have quite different expectations and outcomes in relation to what he was trying to achieve as opposed to a person in the particular business.
For the government to proceed with legislation of this kind, with those inbuilt vagaries, and to leave those vagaries to the discretion of the Commissioner for Anti-Discrimination, or a court, and to place small business in a position where their futures might be at stake in having to satisfy this criteria, not knowing precisely what the extent of the criteria is, not knowing whether this is the extent list. That is, is this the full list or would a commissioner on some occasion come along and say: ‘Well, yes you fulfil (a), (b), (c), (d). Well, you are pretty well off in my view, and of course the number of workers and agents of the person. Now, notwithstanding that you have done pretty well with that, this is in my estimation a very healthy and vibrant business. I would have thought that you as a business might have been able to go beyond these criteria and been able to look after your employers just that little bit better’, and so find against them in terms of meeting this criteria. If that is what this government thinks about looking after business and being a friend of business and being aware of what the business community needs are and how they have to respond to these matters, they have an entirely different understanding as to what business is all about than I have, and certainly it conflicts with what the business community thinks.
Further to that, we have a number of other questions as regards the simple appropriateness of this, and whether or not it raises the question as regards these vagaries. I hope that the minister has been taking note of these concerns, because I know the business community is interested in his answers, and we will certainly be taking the opportunity to convey his answers to them. I also draw his attention to the fact, and I reaffirm now, the requests that have been made by other members, that the opportunity be taken by government - bearing in mind the vagaries of this legislation and the impost that it will have on the small business community - that the government defers this legislation until the next sittings so that business can be better informed and we can get a full and thorough response, knowing what the extent of the legislation is and the impact that it will have on business, rather than, as we have only over the last few weeks, come across just what it is, by accident virtually, because it is not clearly demonstrated in the legislation or the second reading speech.
So given that there has been no clear statement of intent, given that there definitely is concern abroad in the business community, and those concerns extend beyond the matters that I have raised. There is also the very vexed question in the business community of red tape and this imposes yet another layer of red tape on a business. They have to prepare a plan. They have to ensure that that plan is implemented. They then have to undertake the training, and I daresay they are going to have to have some form of annual review or reporting to, if for no other reason - if it is not implicitly in this legislation - but to be able to demonstrate, should the time arise, that they have done what is required of them under this legislation and that, over a period of years, they can demonstrate their continued application of it.
There are many layers of complexity, many layers of cost and impost on the business community, both in terms of the time and the cost of the training programs and preparing the plans and implementing them; assessing it each year; doing a report and being able to demonstrate that their processes are not only being introduced but applied on an annual basis. Then, of course, you have to take into account the hidden costs: that is, the lost time and productivity of the employees whilst they are being trained and made aware of their requirements and responsibilities in relationship to their employment. Of course, the same applies to the employer.
There are many facets of this legislation that have not been apparent. I do not believe they have been fully understood by the Chamber for the reasons that I have stated, and for the same reasons that people like the member for Nelson and myself and others did not understand it, because it was not adequately explained. In fact, you do have to ask the question: was it the intent of this government to conceal the real objectives of this legislation and the real extent of it? Because, in reading the second reading speech and knowing now what the extent of the impact is, you can ask no other question but that. Why was it that the minister in his second reading speech did not clearly enunciate the full extent and impost of this legislation on the small business community, and why was it that he was afraid to do so?
Whether or not it was a social agenda of the Labor government or whether or not he is doing it for other reasons - regardless what the reasons of government are for introducing this legislation - the business community and Territorians generally deserve to know what the extent of it is. If they were given the opportunity to understand that they would not care too much about what the reasons are, but they certainly would then have an opportunity to evaluate it fully.
In that context, if the members on the government benches were able to make reference to this legislation in the context of knowing what the small business community wanted and being able to assess those needs and to work with them, I would draw their attention to the Yellow Pages Business Index which is being released today, because it certainly does not demonstrate any understanding or commitment to the business community by this government. They have seen the acceptance of government go from 41% in August last year down to 5% in November of last year, and to now be at a negative 12% in relation to the acceptance of this government.
Mr Henderson: But not important enough for one question.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, you can hear, yourself, from the interjections from the minister who is responsible for business just how sensitive he is in relation to this matter, and rightly so, because it is a very concerning aspect of what the attitudes of the business community are. Those attitudes are not going to be helped one iota by this legislation.
In closing my remarks, I ask the minister if he will address the many issues that have been raised by me and other members in contributing to this debate. I sincerely request that the government does defer the passage of this legislation for this sittings and put it back until the next sittings, so that the business community can be fully appraised of its extent and of the impact that it will have on the business community, in fairness to them, and the government keeping to its honest, open and accountable promise given when it was the opposition, as to their practices when it would be in government. That is not reflected in the second reading speech and the content of this particular bill.
Ms Martin: Did you have a briefing on this, Mike? You had a briefing on the bill?
Mr REED: So, the Chief Minister is now interjecting and I ask her, rather than interjecting, if she could give the interests of the business community a little thought …
Ms Martin: So when did your concern start? No, you’re lazy.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Chief Minister!
Mr REED: … and defer this legislation so they can consider it in a right and proper context, being fully informed and being able to respond. And at the end of the day, if they do respond in a way that is supportive to this legislation, which I doubt, then okay, the process would have been worthwhile. But there is no need for this legislation to be rushed through. The particular case which is being addressed by it and the main reason for the introduction of it, I now understand has gone to appeal. I will say no more of that because it is in the courts and it would be inappropriate to discuss it directly. But it is my understanding that that case has gone to appeal.
There is no need for rushing this legislation through today. The opposition will be making very clear to the business community that we made these very strong representations on their behalf because of the serious impact this is going to have on their businesses. For that reason, we implore the government to defer the legislation for passage in May if, and when, the business community comes forward with its support.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it has certainly been a fulsome debate, and I welcome that from the House. Our policy of bringing the real business of the House forward to earlier in the day is certainly resulting in some very good debates on bills.
Before I deal with the members’ contributions in detail and individually, let’s go back a couple of steps to the context of this bill. For all the apparent shortcomings of the second reading speech, it does mention a very important fact and that is that there is not one Anti-Discrimination Act out there, but there are two. There is the Commonwealth act administered under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the race, sex and disability legislation; and there is the Territory level Anti-Discrimination Act. The Commonwealth act is extant and is operational and has no limits on the vicarious liability settlements under their legislation. It also has no defences for a business which is involved in a vicarious liability case. That is the very important ‘other’ that we have to judge this legislation, and the timing of this legislation, against.
The recent case which has now been appealed certainly indicated - I think as the member for Macdonnell said earlier in the debate - that there are limits on the operation of vicarious liability within the Northern Territory act, to the extent that the employer actually has to be shown to be actively encouraging contravention of anti-discrimination provisions, rather than simply being a party to an offence when it has been alleged. The judge certainly casts doubt to what everyone had assumed, was that vicarious liability did exist in the Northern Territory act. For 10 years people proceeded on that basis, often to settle before a court action, on the basis that they believed that vicarious liability was available under our act. Justice Mildren’s decision has, for the first time, confirmed that there are real doubts that that exists in our legislation, and also casts quite a degree of ambiguity on the principal agent responsibilities of an employer, which is another context in which liability may be carried.
So, what is going to happen now? Given that we have this dual system of Commonwealth and Territory law, where is someone going to go if they believe that they have suffered some jeopardy within the operation of a business or an organisation? They are going to go to our act where there is now real doubt that it carries the vicarious liability. Or are they going to go to the Commonwealth legislation where there is no doubt that vicarious liability is an allowable situation, and where the limits on claims are limitless? Our act carries an upper limit of $60 000, so it is quite clear that an alleged victim of discrimination will more than likely head off to the Commonwealth act and take action under that.
To be talking about this change that we are talking of bringing into the House today as being an extra impost on business is being a touch dishonest, given that if you are going around talking to these unnamed businesses, including the Darwin Regional Business Association which is an affiliate of the Chamber. If you are going around claiming that the 700 members of the Chamber have got it wrong and that these other businesses that we are not hearing the names of have a different view on it, then I hope in the consultations you claim to have had with them, you were very clear about the fact that they are subject to action under the Commonwealth act as well as the Northern Territory act. The Commonwealth act carries infinitely more potential jeopardy for business, and no defences. No defences against these actions built into the act. They are on their own; they have to argue that they took some steps to prevent the discrimination. There are no guidelines within the Commonwealth act that would help them in their task.
I want to move on now to the particular matters that members have raised, and I will give a response to each one in turn. The shadow Attorney-General proposed an amendment to section 105(3) to omit ‘are to be considered’ and substitute ‘may be considered’. In our view it has the effect of weakening the reference to the criteria set out in section 105(3), subsections (a) to (e). This would mean that not only is consideration of the anti-discrimination training and so forth in 105(3)(a) to (c) not mandatory, but is also that consideration of the number of employees and financial circumstances of the employer in 105(3)(d) and (e) is also not mandatory. This could be seen as anti-employer because your plan to change the wording is doing the very things that you have been arguing are jeopardising business. You are actually removing the possibility that the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in a hearing can actually take into account the number and the size of the business, the financial position of the business, and many of the other areas that they might be able to prove in a hearing that they have actually achieved in terms of their anti-discrimination policies.
The current provision is not exclusive; preamble to section 105(3), ‘… without limiting the matters which may be taken into account …’ - the current provision allows for balance and certainty. It sets out the matters that may constitute reasonable steps, section 105(3)(a) to (c), and allows for consideration of the individual circumstances of each employer, 105(3)(d) and (e). The nature and scope of the training referred to in 105(3)(a) to (c) would be decided by reference to the financial circumstances and the number of employees as set out in 105(3)(d) to (e). That is why (d) and (e) are there; it all gets back to the use of the word ‘reasonable.’ Now, what might be reasonable in General Motors Holden would be totally unreasonable at the corner coffee shop. It is clear very small business is going to have a much more limited capacity to provide extensive training and planning and documentation in behind its management practices than a very large corporation – that is embodied in these provisions that we are putting forward today.
The second area, the proposed amendments to delete 105(3)(a) to (c), defeats a proposal first suggested by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry – you are going against 700 businesses in the Northern Territory by saying what suits them does not suit you, for some reason. The current provision provides guidance for employers as to the sort of steps that constitute reasonable steps. To delete them would lead to uncertainty for employers, and the need to test individual assertions case by case, hearing by hearing. Case law suggests that the development and implementation of steps are what constitutes reasonable steps; to specify them both makes this requirement explicit and certain.
The idea of inserting a new section 105(4)(c) - (c) takes into ‘… consideration the effect of the order on the viability of the person’s undertaking, establishment or service’. That is your proposed amendment. The amendment alters the nature of the award of compensation. The apportionment provisions of 105(4) allows for the apportionment of compensation to be made on the basis of probability; if an employer is found to be culpable and has to pay compensation in proportion with that degree of culpability, they should not be able to escape through crying poor. Given the apportionment provisions, if the amendment were to be accepted, then there would be no in-principle reason not to apply it to all respondents, including respondents that are directly liable.
The amendment says that the viability of an undertaking is more important than compensating for sexual harassment and other discrimination, despite a respondent’s culpability for that harassment, so it goes against the whole spirit of the act to have that in there. The amendment would drive complainants to use the Commonwealth legislation and bring the federal body into the lives of Territory employers.
Moving to the member for Araluen. The cost of training – you are correct to say that the cost of training is $70 per worker. The training is already necessary to give effect to the defences under the Commonwealth race, sex and disability legislation - it does not create an additional burden. It is unusual for a workplace to send all its workers on formal training. More normally, the management, lower, middle or upper, is sent on training and the general workforce is then made aware of the content of the anti-discrimination policy, and the management’s commitment to it. The cost is therefore likely to be considerably less than put forward.
The member for Macdonnell, essentially, was saying that I was being less than forthright in saying the bill clarified the existence of vicarious liability because the Pinecot case found there was no vicarious liability. Just to remind the member, the judgment of Justice Mildren came down two days after I gave the second reading speech in parliament. However, the bringing down of the judgment has changed nothing because in fact the judgment far from clearing up the situation as regards the Territory act has simply added to the uncertainties that are attached to it. In fact, we are now seeing that an appeal has been brought forward, and it would be unlikely that we are going to see any resolution through that court process until probably well into next year depending on how many steps are taken in it. It really makes the bringing forward of this legislation and the timing of this legislation even more relevant.
When I wrote to you on 31 January, in response to the issues that you raised, I pointed out to you that on further advice the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has issued appeal proceedings with respect to the decision of Mildren J in Pinecot. It is not yet clear whether this appeal will proceed, when it will be heard, and, of course, what the outcome will be. There is thus still considerable uncertainty.
I should also note that in this context the amending bill mirrors the liability provisions of the Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation that employers are already subject to. I pointed out to you, what I have reiterated in this debate and that is we are not dealing with just the Territory legislation here. We are dealing with the Territory legislation and its relationship to the Commonwealth legislation, and the fact that in the absence of a workable structure within our own legislation, inevitably people will go to the Commonwealth legislation. You really are bound under that situation to not look at jeopardy in terms of real or imagined jeopardy within our own legislation, but jeopardy given the two co-existing legislations that are available to plaintiffs who want to take action on an alleged discrimination. We have to be very clear about that, that we are not talking about an isolated piece of legislation existing unrelated to the Commonwealth.
The comments of both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were all about the consultation. You have to be a bit sceptical when people keep talking about this small business or these small businesses or this section of the small business community when we have gone to the peak body for business. This bill has been not only discussed at length with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry but, in fact, elements of it were actually proposed by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in response to some of the needs that they saw for their members.
In a perfect world, you would go to every one of the hundreds of the small, medium and large businesses in the Northern Territory, go round individually and say: ‘What do you think about this bill?’ Within the context of a government trying to get through a legislative program, it is a perfectly valid thing to go to the recognised peak body of a sector of the community, have thorough negotiations with them and then move to take the action that they agree to. That is what we have done and I would stand by our diligence in taking that step.
I will point out that the terminology and the structuring of the bill, particularly the use of ‘all reasonable steps’ is not new. It exists in other legislation around the country, Queensland amongst others. It is not new law; it is not law that is untested.
I would like to now conclude my remarks in response to the members contributions by again thanking them, but I want to take this opportunity to reiterate what I said in the last sittings. That is that we are putting forward in a very sincere way a process to allow all members of this House to have creative input to the formation of law within this Chamber. I have made it very clear that we have to be given time to check amendments to see what their legal and legislative force may be and their merit in terms of whether they critique some way the legislation we brought before the House. I do not feel any threat by that process; I think all 25 members of this House should be able and should be given a process to contribute to the formation of law within the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
I am very sincere about that and you will see later in these sittings that we will be adopting an amendment brought by the member for Macdonnell, and I thank him for his diligence in looking at that legislation. He has brought forward an issue of merit and we have had that evaluated. We believe it will improve the bill by including that reform in it, and I will be fulsome in my praise of him in raising that issue for us.
That is the process; that is what I have made very clear in previous sittings. That is why we will not be accepting the amendments that the shadow Attorney-General has put forward today for the very reason that we have not had any opportunity to get them evaluated. They have no merit on the first blush, but even if there was some merit in them, you have known this structure. You have had four months with this bill. You have had the opportunity at any stage to seek a briefing. You took the briefing two weeks ago, you brought these here on the floor of the House. We have no chance to respond to this and we therefore have no choice but to reject them.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Can I just point out that you two members have spoken during the second reading speeches.
Mr Elferink: Yes, sorry. I was worried about the committee stages, that’s all, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: We are up to that now.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether this is in order, but I would just like to thank the Attorney-General for the briefing. I forgot to mention that in my speech.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr MALEY: There is similar legislation all round Australia and we have heard the honourable member for Stuart talk about one of those pieces of legislation being the Commonwealth Anti-Discrimination Act. The very crux of the amendment, the requirement for the amendment, is really, in my view, completely contained in subparagraphs (1) and (2) which are probably an accurate example of what exists in other jurisdictions. If I can just labour the point for a moment - and I have to labour it because, for example, the member for Fannie Bay had a difficulty earlier trying to understand one portion of the legislation and not the other portion. If I could just explain that for the member for Fannie Bay’s benefit - the position of the opposition is that we support the principle contained in section 105(1) and (2). The difficulty arises with going on to the surplusage. So, if you can just stay with the agenda, the member for Araluen and I have both spoken - indeed, the other members of the opposition spoke quite vigorously. We support the clarifying of this vicarious liability aspect. The difficulty we have is in relation to the balance of the amendment being subparagraphs (2) and (4). Even dissecting it more than that, there are some subsections of subparagraphs (3) and (4) which we are quite happy with. That is why the amendment which I have tabled is in existence because, in our view, it would remedy those defects which are contained in the balance of the bill and we would then support it.
My question is, having regard to the legislation which exists in Victoria, the legislation that exists in Western Australia, the legislation that exists in New South Wales, the legislation that exists in South Australia and also the Anti-Discrimination Act of the ACT which stops at clauses (1) and (2), why did you instruct your counsel to draft the extra and confusing provisions contained in subsections (3) and (4)?
Dr TOYNE: The intent of the additional guidelines that are embodied in subsections (3) and (4) is to provide a framework in two senses. It is quite clearly stated in the second reading speech: the first is that it gives some structure to what are the types of reasonable steps that an employer may or may not have taken in terms of preventing the discriminatory behaviour in their organisation. That is where those five provisions give not only some of the areas of activity that you would expect to see there if an employer was actively working against discrimination in their business or organisation.
The (d) and (e) basically allow the hearing to scale what is reasonable to the size of the employment within the organisation concerned, which in turn then leads to subsection (4), where we wanted to ensure that the perpetrator, if there was discriminatory behaviour proven, was not let off scott free, that there was some apportionment of the compensation payment between the principal and the agent, the employer and the employee, according to the degree of culpability that the hearing finds in a particular case.
That, I believe, is a fair way in terms of the employer’s interest, simply because they have money and the perpetrator may not have amounts of money similar to the company, that there is still some expectation that the offender will bear some of the cost of compensation. That is why they are put there, and I am not resiling from this. This is new law, it is a new detail put into an anti-discrimination act for the very reason that it was suggested by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry against the practical issues that they have seen from their members in cases of this type, and it allows the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to take a much more detailed framework to the outcomes of the hearing.
Mr MALEY: Just so it is clear, you are saying that the only reason you have decided to step outside the framework which exists in other jurisdictions and have this new subparagraph (3), is that you were urged to do this by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry? And if that is the case, do you realise, if you have an objective look at this, that this is actually a burden upon employers? It is a burden because there are a number of matters which are to be considered, under common law in the other jurisdictions it is completely discretionary but you have taken the extra step and made it now compulsory. It is mandatory for the commission to take into account those matters. And, of course, there are some matters in subparagraphs (d) and (e) which employers would be happy about. But do you understand very specifically what you are doing?
There is no problem in other jurisdictions in determining what all reasonable steps could or may mean. You have taken the extra step of, despite the fact there is no Supreme Court judgment saying there is ambiguity, you have taken the extra step and imposed some mandatory obligations. Are you saying that this is a conscious decision by you and it was made only because of the recommendation made by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry? And having regard to the fact there seems to be no ambiguity in other states, where did the notion to make this mandatory come from?
Dr TOYNE: I can certainly debunk one of the assertions you just made, that there has been no difficulty in applying legislation elsewhere, both HREOC themselves and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry have reported immense difficulty in defining what are reasonable actions on the part of an employer in trying to prevent discrimination occurring within their sphere of influence.
These constant assertions that we are putting an impost on business, particularly small business, by these provisions: there are two imposts that can happen to a business regarding anti-discrimination provisions within our laws. One is a reactive one and one is a proactive one. What sort of impost are businesses potentially going to face if they do not carry out some reasonable program to prevent discrimination? You have all crossed your hearts over there, put your hand over your hearts and said: ‘We are dead against discrimination in the workplace’. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that employers are going to be left entirely defenceless in terms of the particular actions that they can take which will be deemed to be reasonable in a hearing? An employer could be very well meaning about trying to prevent discrimination, but they may not take action that is identifiable within a hearing when a complaint is lodged against them or against one of their workers.
What we are doing in this bill is to provide a set of guidelines that will not only apply in a hearing, but will be known to the employers so that they know where to go for safety, where they can build their defences against the potential action taken against them. That is the proactive side. If you want to leave businesses in a reactive mode where they are facing Commonwealth legislation, because that is where everyone is going to head now. The moment that court decision brought our own law into ambiguity everyone is going to be heading for HREOC. At HREOC they have no built defences as an employer, they will simply have to argue their case, situation by situation, and with no limit on the amount of compensation that is going to be awarded to the plaintiff. How can you say that there is no impost there for businesses at the moment, and that we are introducing some sort of new – what we are talking about here is building an insurance into businesses so that they do have some protection because they are following good management practices as regards to Anti-Discrimination Act.
You can say that businesses have some sort of other life where somehow these national and other laws do not apply to their behaviour because they are too small, they do not have the sort of money to deal with it. That is not the real world. These laws are out there, they are operating. It is much better for businesses to be in a proactive relationship with those laws than to simply be waiting there for the lightning strike to hit them fair on the crown of their head, and where they won’t be able to cope with the size of the action against them under the Commonwealth act. What we are providing them with is a protective framework on the side of the businesses that do take these responsibilities seriously and take advantages of the defences that we are offering within this act.
We are not introducing jeopardy, we are trying to save businesses from jeopardy, and what you are doing, whether it is well meaning or not, is going against not only our view about providing defences for business and a fair balance between the interests of the business and the interests of the potential victim of discrimination, but you are basically wanting to throw them back onto their own devices again. I do not see how you can possibly think that is helping.
Mr KIELY: Minister, I have a question with regards to training and the so-called impost alleged to be going down to employers in small business. I won’t cover the area of big business or national companies, or the large companies in town. I am pretty sure that they already conduct awareness sessions underneath the existing anti-discrimination legislation, because as we all know it is an offence to discriminate in the workplace. We know that it is an offence to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, age, religion, political affiliation, particularly political affiliation, because we sure would not have seen any of that go on in this town. These are all offences and these are things that all good employers make their staff aware of in the workplace. When you have a group of people working together it is important that they understand.
I have actually had the pleasure of being a trained harassment contact officer in one life, and I have actually been in and I have delivered information sessions, and let me say I have delivered anti-discrimination awareness sessions to groups of from three to five people who have been released from their workplace. These sessions have taken about no more than half an hour, I would say, to deliver. In that I have managed to go through, not the vicarious liability because we did not have that in our act, but I have managed to go through what the Anti-Discrimination Act means to the individual in the workplace and what is attached to it and their obligations. I have also gone briefly over the federal disability discrimination and race discrimination acts so the people did know about vicarious liability.
These sessions took about half an hour …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Sanderson, I might have to raise a point of order here. We are actually dealing with a specific amendment 11.1, and we …
Mr KIELY: That’s right. This does deal with that, because it talks about the alleged impost on small businesses when they have to release people, or to have people trained up so that they understand the aspects of vicarious liability.
Mr CHAIRMAN: You just need to make sure we focus on that in this debate.
Mr KIELY: Right, okay. So, the other part that the member for Araluen has mentioned in her concerns – and I admire her concerns for this because she is concerned about the mum-and-dad businesses, and what this means about mum and dad working at the local fish and chip shop, working at the local laundromat, just the two of them keeping that business going. They have a need for a training obligation here, so that each one of them is aware of vicarious liability under this act. Although it seems strange to me that, if you are in a relationship together, and it is at such a stage that you have to go to the commissioner and say to them: ‘Look, I wish to proceed under the Anti-Discrimination Act and vicarious liability here’. I would have thought that would be more family law. I would have thought it would be more family law, that if there is a couple working together, that they would use that. But I am not a trained lawyer. You are, you would know that when there is conflict in the workplace between husband and wife, that they will go to the anti-discrimination, won’t they? They won’t go to family law, will they? Lucky I am not a trained lawyer because I would not have seen that one! However …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Sanderson, amendment 11.1.
Mr KIELY: The question here is how long will it take a small business, anticipated, to make their people aware of these vicarious liability actions?
Mr ELFERINK: Evidently, Mr Chairman, the good minister has condescended not to answer the question. I can well understand why.
My issues on this matter come down to two points, and I am speaking, of course, directly in relation to clause 3, which is currently under interrogation. But, what concerns me on how we come to the point where we have come to discuss clause 3, is how did we come to this point in the first place?
I thank the honourable minister for his statements just as we went into committee stage, or immediately prior. He was quite right in pointing out that the bill was laid on the Table here two days prior to the Pinecot decision being handed down. Indeed, on the cover of the Pinecot decision it shows that the decision was handed down on 30 November.
Nevertheless, in his second reading speech the minister has referred to litigation of the Supreme Court, or did he have in mind at the time the Pinecot litigation which was still under consideration of the court? I was just wondering if you could advise me of that.
Dr TOYNE: I think it was clear that if the court was testing the existence or otherwise of vicarious liability within our act …
Mr Elferink: Was that the Pinecot decision that we are talking about?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, within that case …
Mr Elferink: I thank the minister for his …
Dr TOYNE: … that it was timely to bring forth the legislation, that’s all.
Mr ELFERINK: Sure. I thank the minister. So, at least we are talking about the Pinecot decision. I just ask the minister: subsequent to the handing down of the Pinecot decision, has he since read the decision?
Dr TOYNE: Yes. I think as living proof of that, there it is.
Mr ELFERINK: Have you read it?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, I have it in detail, along with my advisors. I certainly understand the core of the decision, yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Once again, I thank the minister. The reason that I have issue with it, is because he has repeatedly talked about a doubt that the decision raises. I think that Justice Mildren is quite clear in handing down his decision that there was no doubt. I draw the honourable minister’s attention to page 30 of that decision:
It would have been a simple matter for the legislature to have expressly provided for the liability
of principals or corporations for the acts of their servants or agents. They did not do so and I think
that in the circumstances it must be inferred that the omission to do so was deliberate.
This was already in the minds of the Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General and the people who advise him, because he handed down a bill based on the issue before Pinecot because he knew, or it was reasonable to assume, what the decision of Justice Mildren was going to be. The decision of Justice Mildren was always going to be the decision that Justice Mildren handed down. I think it was clear from the arguments before Justice Mildren that he would have had very little choice but to go down the path that he chose to go down, because the act was structured in such a way that vicarious liability was indeed not in doubt, but vicarious liability did not exist under the construction of the act.
That does not prevent the act from operating in such a fashion as to hold an employer directly responsible for the actions of one of his employees. I draw the minister’s attention to page 29 of the decision:
In general terms, the ‘course of employment’ is said to encompass such unauthorised acts by the servant as
can be regarded as an unauthorised mode of performing an authorised task. It is hard to envisage how, in
the usual case an act of sexual harassment could be other than a ‘frolic of his own’: see the discussion in
Fleming on Torts …
That is the direction Mildren take us in. What has happened here is that there is a case before the court which the minister became aware of, understood into what direction the case was going and, rather than dealing with issues of doubt, he was dealing with a fact, and the fact of the matter was that vicarious liability did not exist. So the minister has come into to this Chamber claiming doubt and, as a consequence of making such a claim, has said: ‘We’re going to do the right thing and introduce vicarious liability’. My issue is not with vicarious liability. My issue is with the process that the minister chose to pursue in relation to bringing this matter forward.
In the second reading speech, what he has done is made it quite clear that he seems to be - or that he is certainly under the impression – that he is doing business a favour, which will soon take me to my second issue in relation to clause 3. The fact of the matter is that the minister has moved, prior to the decision being handed down - which is entirely his right - to deal with an issue raised in the court, which is not a problem. My issue with it is that, in bringing clause 3 of the bill forward in the fashion that he has done, and attaching to it a second reading speech which was hardly clear in terms of its intent, what he has tried to do is set out through effective deception, to build up a vicarious liability that simply did not exist in the act.
So, rather than saying to us: ‘We have a problem with this, people of the Northern Territory. We believe in vicarious liability and we are going to bring it forward as introducing vicarious liability under the Anti-Discrimination Act’. I have no problem with that. But what they have done is they tried to us a back door and I am concerned about that, because it means that the people out there that he refers to in the letter that he sent me - organisations such as the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry - may have been labouring under the misapprehension under the minister’s second reading speech, which was available immediately after it being laid on the Table, that he was clarifying some doubt - where in actual fact no doubt existed. No doubt existed. It was quite clear that the act did not extend to vicarious liability.
So, for that reason alone, I would suggest that the member for Nelson, indeed, your suggestion, that the matter be allowed to lay on the Table until it is revisited, and so it is seen in a proper light, should be allowed to occur. I do not think that we will be endangering the safety of Territorians by not allowing this to lay on the Table for further discussion at a later stage.
Now, that takes me to my second issue in relation to clause 3, and that is the actual structure of the defences, as the minister refers to them, that are built into clause 3. In the letter that the minister sent to me he refers to the indicia which are built into clause 3. As we have already heard expressed from the shadow Attorney-General, those indicia, if this is passed into law will have to be considered by the court. And he calls them ‘defences’. Be that as it may, they will provide a defence if those indicia are proved by the people who are being questioned in relation to this issue.
My problem is this, is that in subsection (3), ‘… without limiting the matters that maybe taken into account in determining whether the person has taken all reasonable steps, the following matters are to be considered …’. The following matters are then listed down, (a), (b), (c), (d) and (d) which of course I am sure that the minister is going to correct. But those he has said at the outset without limiting the matters so that there are other indicia which a discrimination commissioner or a court may turn their attention to in determining what are all reasonable steps. The very structure of subsection 3 would of course force a court to actually turn their attention to the particular clauses outlined. Which indicia has the minister omitted to turn his attention to? What other indicia are known in common law to the minister and why has he chosen to rely on those five at the exclusion of all others?
There are large bodies of rulings on these particular issues in other jurisdictions. Those indicia must be very well established by this stage and the minister was quite clear in his letter to me that unlike other legislation in other jurisdictions more meaning will be given to these defences. Why does he choose these indicia over the large body of indicia that are available to other jurisdictions? It seems to me that we would be actually operating contrary to the useful outcomes of justice if we were going to lay more weight on particular indicia when there is an enormous body of law which any Anti-Discrimination Commissioner or court could turn their attention to at another point.
I am no expert on these matters, Mr Chairman, however once again it is one of those issues that hasn’t been properly explored, hasn’t been explained in the second reading speech and therefore should lay on the Table in this House until such time as all participants, not just the NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry, get a chance to revisit this issue and as a consequence of revisiting that issue make some submissions to the government.
Dr TOYNE: I am getting a lot of indicias here about how this debate is going. I have just learnt what it means – indicators - doesn’t it? Yeah. I love dictionary games.
Let’s deal with the Pinecot case; it is on appeal. Like all appeals it could have several outcomes. It could be that the judgment is overturned, modified, confirmed. One of the possible outcomes is that the appeal could result in vicarious liability being admitted as a possibility in our legislation with no defences available to it.
Mr Elferink: But we don’t know that, do we?
Dr TOYNE: We don’t know that. That is precisely right, and at the time this legislation was first introduced into the House we did not know then either. We did not know what Mildren’s judgment would be and as a prudent government, as we did with the Bradley legislation, the Chief Magistrate legislation, we had to prepare a legislative response if a court process looked like it might have effects on the interests that have been dealt with under legislation and under policy. It was prudent for us as a government at that stage to introduce legislation. The situation has not changed because the uncertainty in the court process is still there and still offers up any possibility in regards to the existence of the vicarious liability in our legislation.
We intend, for that reason, to proceed to provide, certainty in our act, so that businesses here can take up this structure with certainty, with the knowledge of what types of activities they will need to engage in to build the protection that they will need against vicarious liability claims against them.
My colleague, the member for Sanderson, has indicated that it is not that hard. I have had it pointed out here that there are educational tools available to small businesses from the Anti-Discrimination Commission here. There is a plain English with explanatory notes of the actual act. There are videos advertising rights and responsibilities that are available both in English and Aboriginal languages, and the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has an educational officer available to train employers. I really think that you are overstating the impost that this might make on small business. No one is saying is that it is not a responsibility. It is not a new responsibility. A prudent business would also want to do this because of the existence of the Commonwealth act in its present form.
I really do not have that much more to say on the points that you have raised. In fact, generally on the points that have been raised through the course of this debate, I am beginning to feel that we have dealt with them, and I wonder whether it is time to bring on the amendments.
Mr ELFERINK: I asked the minister quite explicitly in terms of indicia and apologise for my mispronunciation of it. The reason I specifically asked that is because at a later time where there is ambiguity a court may refer to the second reading debates. I want to hear from the minister the indicia that he might see has included in the matters not being limited by the subsection, and I would like to know why he is specifically concentrating on the five that he has outlined at the exclusion of others.
Dr TOYNE: It is not for me as a minister to personally choose the …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Let me finish. … the direction that was taken in frame working what might be reasonable steps came from a significant consultation between officers in my department and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In that group you have both practical business experience, the people who know what is involved at ground level in running business, and what would be practical to do in that situation and, on the other hand, people who are experienced in drafting legislation and assessing the action of one act against the body of law as a whole. They are the people with the expertise to make these judgments, not me. I have brought it in here with confidence because I have confidence in those people. If you believe that the role of a minister is to be personally expert on every matter that comes to you, it is a misreading.
The purpose of having a whole department full of people and access and a network of consultation that we carry out with the interest groups in the community is to assemble the expertise needed to make these proposals valid. That is where it has come from. I am not claiming any personal expertise if that is what your asking. It was not my choice to put those five things in there. It came out of an appropriate consultation with the people who do have the detailed knowledge.
Mr MALEY: You talk about these first three criteria; having them there to protect business. Why then didn’t you consider through the Chamber of Commerce and Industry or through an education program making sure that businesses are aware these are things they can do to avoid liability as opposed to enshrined in the legislation and exposing business to a sanction if they do not comply? Why didn’t you go down the other path of education through the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, through this consultation as opposed to reducing it to writing and putting it in the legislation?
Dr TOYNE: This assumption that there is no sanction there in the present situation, that businesses are in jeopardy as we stand right now unless they have some defence against a vicarious liability action against them; this provides the framework for building a defence. We are not increasing jeopardy. We are actually offering the means by which a business can lower the target area that they would be offering to a vicarious liability action. These are pro-business provisions provided by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I can appreciate the touching concerns of the members opposite in relation to this piece of legislation, but it is one piece of legislation before this House. They have had since November last year when this bill was tabled in this Assembly to bring these concerns, if they were serious concerns and not get in here grandstanding at the 11th hour, to bring their concerns, if they were serious about them, to the Attorney-General for him to address.
We have seen this too many times in relation to the legislation. The same with amendments; they pop up today. They never brought them to the attention of the Attorney-General before. I suggest if they are serious with their amendments, they are serious about their concerns in this legislation, get on with it.
Mr MALEY: The legislation is simple. The amendments are incredibly straightforward. If the members on the other side of the House do not have the capacity to understand what we are talking about, and amending the word ‘are’ to ‘may’, then I have serious reservations about the minister’s capacity to carry out his job.
These are simple amendments. There is nothing difficult and you can hide behind all the grandstanding and glaring and pointing and carrying on, but it is a disgrace if you genuinely are of the view that you have not had an opportunity to properly consider this. These are basic changes to a new piece of legislation which are clear on the face of them. It is a disgrace that you hold yourself out to be the number one law man if you cannot grasp that.
Mr STIRLING: What is a disgrace is this guy coming in here, grandstanding in the fashion he has. Before lunch, we had four speakers on that side. He jumps up as the shadow Attorney-General, puts a view; is immediately contradicted by his Leader of the Opposition. The assistant shadow Attorney-General, the member for Araluen, on the back seats gets up and gives another view partly in support, and then the member for Macdonnell who we rarely know what position he is coming from. They have a responsibility before they get into this House to debate legislation, to have caucused on it, to have got their views, to have briefings, to have gone back after their briefings, to canvass what amendments they want to put and if they are serious about the amendments, to get them across to the government for consideration.
The former government never allowed amendments from the opposition on the floor of the House for good reason. They challenged us every time, if we were serious about amendments, to get them up there and get them to the Attorney-General so he could have a look. I suggest they are simply grandstanding, they are simply wasting the time of this Assembly. If they are serious about their amendments, get on with it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I just make a point that if the questions now are repetitive, I will not allow them. We have been going over the same – we are only dealing with clause 11.1 which considers the difference between the sentences ‘are to be considered’ and ‘may be considered’. That is what we are talking about. If there is no new argument about that, I will not allow them to be asked.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I must respond to the Deputy Chief Minister. I point out to the Deputy Chief Minister that I wrote a letter to the minister shortly after the matter was laid on the Table. It took him six weeks to reply to me. He says in the bottom of the letter that he would be pleased to arrange a briefing for me and in fact he requested the Anti-Discrimination Commission do so. No such briefing is forthcoming. We can introduce what amendments we like when we please, and if you do not like it, make sure that you keep up your end of the deal.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I believe we are moving off the subject. The question is related to clause 3, amendment 11.1. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question – put and negatived.
Amendments 11.2, 11.3 and 11.4, by leave, taken together:
Mr MALEY: In your earlier statements, you said that by reducing these provisions to writing you would be somehow protecting business. Are you serious when you say that, when you clearly state in subparagraph (3): ‘… and without limiting the matters that are to be taken into account …’, or – if you pay attention - all the matters which exist in common law in all the other states, all the law applied, so all these indicia are considered, the 17 of them, what you have done - do you realise this? - you have specifically picked out three or four of them, you have given them more weight and you have made it compulsory for the commissioner or for a court to consider them. Do you realise what you have done? You have gone from the situation where it was not compulsory, you have chosen these three socially - part of your political agenda - you have put them in the act and you have made it compulsory. Do you realise what you have done?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move that the question be put.
Question – put and passed.
Question - that the amendments be agreed to - put and negatived.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 11.5 standing in my name. I will take it slowly so the member for Fannie Bay and the member for Nhulunbuy can understand this. The question is to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. This particular provision is not complicated; it is only two lines long and if you read it over lunch time, you will read that it is clearly something that is an advantageous to business. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry supports this provision. It is lifted almost word perfectly from the Workplace Relations Act and all it does is allow the commissioner, once there has been a finding of a contravention of the act occurred, to take into consideration how much money the business or the person has when awarding the costs. This is not unreasonable. You do not have to have a minister for health working brief to determine whether this should be taken into account. This is simple. This is straight forward. It is a basic subparagraph and all it does is enable the commissioner to look at the financial circumstances of the business or the person before they make an order.
In light of what you said about accepting what the Chamber of Commerce and Industry wanted in relation to subparagraph (3), the Chamber of Commerce and Industry also endorsed this provision and in this situation, I am urging you to consider it and if not, why not?
Dr TOYNE: I will deal with this very quickly because I think we have had a pretty fulsome discussion including that point in the second reading debate and earlier in this committee stage debate and you have plenty on Hansard of what you think about all this.
In reference to the words that you are suggesting are being taken out of the Workplace Relations Act, this is used there in relation to orders for termination and reinstatement. There is no reference to these words in relation to financial orders or orders for compensation. So to lift a body of words from legislation out of a context that has nothing to do with what we are talking about is not exactly an honest practice.
Mr Chairman, I move that the question be put.
Question - put and passed.
Question – that the amendment be agreed to – put and negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I should make a point here that there is a typographical error. In clause 105(3), there are two (d)s.
Dr TOYNE: Yes, the (d) to an (e), Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That will be changed in the printing.
The question now is that the bill be reported without an amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: Point of order, Mr Chairman. There is an amendment and that is simply the lettering change for sake of completeness.
Mr CHAIRMAN: That is a Clerk’s amendment. I will ask that again. The question now is that the bill be reported without an amendment.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 10
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 Mills
Ms Martin Mr Reed
Ms Scrymgour Mr Wood
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion of censure against the member for Goyder for misleading this Assembly by referring to a set of minutes which, when subsequently tabled, were found not to be minutes and a record of proceedings at all but rather an agenda.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, earlier this afternoon, the member for Goyder asked the following question of the Attorney-General:
Fairly clear, Madam Speaker, twice in the space of a few lines, in asking his question of the minister for Justice and Attorney-General this afternoon, he has twice referred to a document as ‘minutes’.
He was seeking to table a copy of those so-called minutes and, at first glance - at absolute first glance - it was apparent to me when the Chief Minister put them before my eyes, one glance was enough to know that they were not minutes. They are headed ‘Ministerial Meeting 23 January 2002’. A reading of the first paragraph would be enough for anyone I would suggest to know that they are not minutes, and I quote from that first paragraph: The opening statement, dot points:
Madam Speaker, anyone glancing at that would see that they are points that they wanted to make in a meeting with the minister. They are not minutes. They are not a record of proceedings of a meeting. They are simply dot points that presumably members of the Prison Officers Association wanted to raise. This is an agenda, not a copy of minutes. Anyone purporting to table a document in this Assembly ought well know the difference.
The problem the member for Goyder has is this - he has to explain to this Assembly today - is he a liar, is he an outright liar who tried to misrepresent a document in this Chamber by referring to an agenda as minutes or a record of a meeting? Or, there is another option: is he a complete and utter dill? Is he a complete and utter dill, and perhaps there is a third one, but they go together: he has been set up in this little charade by a person or persons unknown. I mean he has a choice here: yes, I’m a liar, I tried to fool you; no, I’m not a liar, I am just a dill. I submit he is one or the other.
We do know this: he is a trained lawyer with all that that training, that legal, that reading and all that that implies. Now, I wondered if he could have been so sloppy in a court of law when he was in his profession as lawyer defending clients as he apparently has been here. Is he so complacent about his duties in this Chamber that he can so flippantly refer to a given document as a set of minutes when quite clearly it is a set of agenda points for people to refer to? Is he being mischievous and manipulative, and prepared to take an outright risk by lying in the hope that he would not be caught out?
Madam Speaker, if it is the latter and he is a liar, he has been duly caught out and he fully deserves the censure of this House. He has, by his actions, also pulled in a number of members on the other side. They were all too keen to jump in and support him, but you have to ask yourself: did they have a look at this document? Because if they had had a look at the document they would have known that these were not minutes but, in fact, dot points for an agenda. Did they readily accept that what the member for Goyder had was in fact minutes, or were they caught up in it, or were they complicit in this little dupe to try and mislead the House?
The Leader of the Opposition, as we know, followed suit with a question on this issue. The member for Katherine, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, also followed suit. Those members are senior members of the opposition. Certainly, the member for Katherine has been here since 1987 - the longest serving member of this House, has been through this sort of nonsense in the past - a little too careful and experienced to get caught up with something as stupid as this, I would have thought, but apparently he did. The Leader of the Opposition has a responsibility in his capacity as the Leader of the Opposition, in the first place, not to mislead the House himself and in the second place, in his capacity as leader, not to allow members of his own side to mislead this House. Did neither of these members check the actual document that the member for Goyder was waving around?
I ask myself, do they caucus when they are preparing and putting these questions together? Do they have a look at the evidence on which they are basing their questions and allegations? Well, apparently not here. And that is an indictment of not just the member for Goyder, not just the Leader of the Opposition, but in fact an indictment of the entire lot of them because what they have done is base five questions on the lies of the member for Goyder.
So, let’s be clear also, where the opposition and the member for Goyder - the discredited member for Goyder - were headed with these baseless allegations. They were alleging that the former Minister for Correctional Services, the member for Arnhem, had instructed authorities at Correctional Services not to transfer Aboriginal prisoners to Alice Springs. That is a serious allegation, worthy of a censure, I would have thought, if it was true. We need to be clear on the point of this level of seriousness, because they were hell-bent on proving that the former minister had interfered, in an operational sense, in Correctional Services. Moreover, in a racist manner to ensure that Aboriginal prisoners would not be transferred to Alice Springs.
Mr Reed: Don’t you think that is a serious issue?
Mr STIRLING: It absolutely is a serious issue and underlines the seriousness of the lie perpetrated by the member for Goyder. Sucked you in, Mike. I would be a bit careful of saying too much here, if I was you. He got you by the short and curlies; you jumped up and asked a question.
To prosecute an allegation of that seriousness requires evidence. It requires substantial substantive evidence. What have we seen? We have seen a document headed ‘Ministerial Meeting 23 January 2002’, purported by the member for Goyder and the member for Goyder only - because I sense that the Leader of the Opposition cringed a bit when I had a look at this and said: ‘These aren’t minutes, get real!’ He ducked. He ducked. He said: ‘My God, what’s he done?’ I am sure that was the attitude. And the response of the member for Wanguri confirms that I am on the spot there. Confirms that I was on the spot, that he did, in fact, duck and think, ‘Oh, my God, I wish I’d had a look at this document before the member for Goyder was waving it around his head’.
What we have seen is the document purported, by the member for Goyder only, to be a set of minutes from a meeting between the Minister for Justice and some members of the Prison Officers Association, but what actually, of course, is a dot point agenda. Is it any wonder …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to page 328 of the House of Representatives Practice in relation to censure motions against opposition members. Page 319 makes it clear that: ‘The importance of such motions or amendments is recognised by a rule that any motion should be given against a government’. I point out to you that the opposition invited the censure of the House to be ruled out of order, and was ruled out of order on the grounds that it was frivolous. A censure motion against an opposition member is a frivolous exercise.
Madam SPEAKER: We have had precedence before when government has brought forward censure motions on the opposition and we have allowed debate by this House.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have seen a number of those; I do not think ever against myself. But is it any wonder that the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General had no apparent recollection of this? He had never seen these minutes because they simply did not exist. And he had no recollection of the events as described by the member for Goyder, the Leader of the Opposition, and followed up by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
I dare say that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be far more careful in future when approached by the member for Goyder or, in fact, any other member of the opposition, telling them that they really have something on the government, when in fact it is all a pretence, a charade, a lie. If I was them, I would want to be looking at the document well in advance of getting down here and asking a question in Question Time. It is a serious motion, a censure motion, despite what the member for Macdonnell might say, because the member for Goyder fully deserves - absolutely and fully deserves - the censure of this House because he lied. He lied outright in relation to a document in his possession, which he was hoping would help him to prosecute a malicious and repugnant allegation against the former Minister for Corrections and the Minister for Justice.
The member for Goyder is a liar, he is lazy and complacent; or he is a complete dill; and perhaps, a combination of all three. I am interested in how he came to be set up as the goose in this exercise, if that is indeed the case. Did someone thrust the document in his hand as he came down the lift or just outside the door in the lobby, and say: ‘Here is the minutes you are looking for of the meeting between the Minister for Justice and members of the Prison Officers Association’? Or did he construct himself, did he bring it upon himself to refer to this little document as, in fact, minutes?
The member for Goyder has an opportunity to respond in this debate and I, for one, am interested in what he will have to say because he will have to admit to being a liar - and not a very good one - or a dill who was duped by others - and they are possible - or lazy and complacent in the sure knowledge I think he has, that one day his turn will come to replace the Leader of the Opposition when the Leader of the Opposition decides it is time for him to move on. Now, that is possibly the most likely explanation. In any case, I hope that the member for Goyder has learnt a lesson here today. Do not come in here waving documents around your head, calling them one thing when they are very clearly not that. I suggest that is lesson number one that you should learn.
I do have, further to this fairly unsavoury little exercise earlier today, a copy of a memo from the Commission of Correctional Services, which I will table, but I will quote:
I will table that memo for the benefit of members opposite.
Importantly, there is no substance in the matters raised today by members opposite - seemingly sordid allegations of racist behaviour by the former Minister for Correctional Services. But there is plenty of substance in this censure motion that I have raised in this Assembly.
The member for Goyder sought very clearly to mislead this Assembly by claiming to have a copy of minutes when he had no such thing. All members should support this motion, but before they do, I am very keen to learn from the member for Goyder just how this occurred.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I make a couple of points. I am pleased to hear that the Deputy Chief Minister has placed on the record that he has accepted the existence of this document and has given it some credibility as a factual document. It is disappointing to note some of the comments he made. I just put this on the record - I am informed by an employee of Correctional Services that the document headed ‘Ministerial Meeting 23 January 2002’, the document which I quite openly tendered and placed on the Table - the document was prepared by Corrections officers. It was placed on a noticeboard, certain agenda items were added. It was then taken to a meeting, I am informed, which occurred on 23 January 2002, and the matters in that particular document were properly raised, and present an accurate reflection of what occurred.
They were given to me as it was termed, ‘These are the minutes of meeting’. Now, prison officers want you to loosely refer to this as minutes of meeting, I am happy to accept that. I certainly did not mean for the government to take so much offence. On the logical rationale which the Deputy Chief Minister has adopted, he has talked about the term ‘agenda’. Well, the term ‘agenda’ does not appear at the top of this document. It says ‘ministerial meeting’. So he is, it seems on his rationale, as guilty as me as describing an agenda when it clearly says ministerial meeting. There was no attempt to hide this document. I stood up and during the course of the question, always intended, and indeed, did tender that document.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MALEY: It seems the government is still thinking like an opposition, and if this is their best defence to the very serious allegation, then you must feel like the ground has opened up and you are going to fall into a massive crack and it is going to close up. Because you cannot avoid this serious allegation which has been made. The defence that you have and the way that you have sought to deal with the matter does you no credit.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, you have had your say.
Mr MALEY: It is proof that you are sensitive to this issue. We want to get to the bottom of it. We want the proof. I look forward to hearing the member for Arnhem’s contribution to this censure motion, so we can record on Hansard his responses.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: The Labor government is doomed. This is the type of theatrics - and this is all that they can rely upon …
Mr DUNHAM: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The interjections during this are not only tiresome, they are intended to put the speaker off providing the information that has been sought by those on the opposite side, and I would ask if you would afford him some protection.
Ms Martin: So is he supporting your leadership?
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, order. There is a point of order raised, and I think it is probably fair to say that we did listen to the Leader of Government Business in fair silence. So let’s give the member for Goyder his say. Can I just say though, when you make provocative comments, do not be surprised if you get a provocative response.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, you can be sure that I am not going to lower myself to the standard which the media and the Northern Territory public are becoming used to through the member for Fannie Bay and the Deputy Chief Minister.
I have succinctly put the true and correct version of how this document came to be tendered. There is absolutely no substance to this motion. It is ill-conceived, doomed, poorly planned, poorly executed, and really it is a disgrace. It goes some way in demonstrating how much trouble the Territory really is in. This is what you have done and you should be very proud of yourself.
Ms Martin: You spent question time asking so many questions on this fraudulent matter.
Mr MALEY: Perhaps you should have a close look at yourself and the way that you conduct yourself, and I hope the media are here to hear this quite rude interjection. All we have asked is, what are you doing? What are you going to do? We have an obligation as an opposition to dutifully take issues to you, to make sure that you are an honest government, and there is no way that you can in any way suggest that you have been duped. I have given you the document. The heading is there. You called it an agenda; the people who gave me this refer to it loosely as minutes. It is …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Chief Minister, come to order.
Mr MALEY: If I could just be heard. There is no need to become hysterical. I can say there is no substance to this motion; it is a waste of time. The facts speak for themselves. I appreciate the fact that the Deputy Chief Minister has accepted this as a factual document. He describes it, albeit, as an agenda, and I am interested to see what independent investigations are undertaken by the government to satisfy this House.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr MALEY: You listen closely. I will be interested to see what further investigation the government undertakes to satisfy this House and also support the answers which the member for Arnhem and the member for Stuart so passionately gave.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, when someone comes into the House and uses a bald faced lie to misrepresent not only the supposed actions of the previous Minister for Correctional Services, my colleague the member for Arnhem, but also what I was purported to have said or not said at a legitimate meeting with the Prison Officers Association, I start to get pretty hostile. The very least that members of this House owe each other is to use only factual material if you are going to impute the reputation of other members.
As Minister for Correctional Services, I have a very important responsibility not only to deal with the Prison Officers Association in whatever terms they want to bring to me, but also to make sure that their reputation is defended. By dragging this document through the public arena and calling it minutes, calling it what it was not, you have not only insulted me and my colleague, but you have also insulted the officers who make up this association and the profession that they follow. Correctional Services has enough on its plate with the very complex issues they deal with without having their internal negotiations with the minister dragged through this House, based on lies, as to what the document is that has been presented here.
I can once again confirm that not only is this not an official or agreed-to minutes of our negotiations, but, in fact, the item that you chose to pick out of the document actually was not discussed. We take our own transcripts of our meetings and I can certainly confirm that that item was simply not discussed, and that was my memory of it when I was questioned earlier today.
If you want to go around and say that every document that is brought in front of the government is the government’s view and that we were party to the assertions made on this document or any other document, you are going to be in trouble. You get your facts straight. It may have occurred to you to go around and check a few things out. If you are asserting that the Minister for Correctional Services, at the time the member for Arnhem was in that position, had influenced the process, where is the evidence of it? Did you look at the prison transfers? It is very clear, according to the figures here - and I gave them earlier today - that of 78 prisoner transfers, 47 were Indonesian. The Correctional Services CEO, Dave Moore, has given very clear reasons why a substantial number of the Indonesian people smugglers were taken to Alice Springs. They are a more stable group and they can actually sustain themselves in an effective way if there are sufficient numbers of them down there. That is a policy decision that has been made by the department and is for prisoner management and it is for the appropriateness of the two prisons to the particular prisoners that they are looking at. Nine were Caucasian. Are we saying that that’s racist? Twenty-two were Aboriginal. Well, if the minister said: ‘No more prisoner transfers who are Aboriginal’, then it certainly did not get through to the troops because the Aboriginal prisoners were transferred in exactly the proportion of Aboriginal prisoners within our prisons. One-third are Aboriginal; one-third were transferred out of the 78. Eight were volunteers; they chose to go to be closer to families, or to take up prison programs that they had an interest in.
There is no evidence wherever you look for this ridiculous allegation that has been brought forward based on a document presented as a lie. This is the worst possible action by a member of parliament. To deceive this place deliberately as to the document that has been quoted from is the worst possible behaviour. We have a Privileges Committee. I think the member for Goyder will be very relieved if he finds he is not being dragged up to the Privileges Committee to answer to his actions today. It has brought shame on the entire opposition that they have indulged in this absolutely seamy incident today. You have standards that you have to show to the Northern Territory people that you can live to if you want to aspire to get back into government in some 20 years from now, maybe, the way you are going. But you come in here - do what we do: get your facts straight, don’t tell lies and check what is really going on before you get in here and make a fool of yourselves.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, these things are, for an Independent, very difficult at times because you are asked on the spot to make a decision. It would probably be more comfortable for me to just sit down and listen to the debate. I am not here to gain favour from one side or the other, but it just so happens that I had a meeting with George Johnson, I think he is the President of the Prison Officers Association, who actually handed me a copy of the minutes of the recent meeting. I cannot give you the date or the facts because I am afraid my office is closed at the moment, so I can’t get the facts as I would like to. But I have read those minutes and this document here is very similar to those minutes. In fact, the reason that I noticed them is because I was concerned about the section on petrol sniffers and terminally-ill prisoners. They were among the issues I was hoping to raise in parliament.
I am not here to support the allegations that there has been racial interference in prisoners movements in the Northern Territory. That is another issue. I am here is to try to find out the truth and perhaps whether someone has stood up here in parliament believing that what they gave parliament were the minutes. Having seen the document that I have back at my office, these certainly look very similar to what I have as minutes. They may not be exactly the same - and I don’t remember the title ‘ministerial meeting’ - but the subjects that they cover, many of them - and I can’t say all of them - but many of them are exactly what is in the minutes.
I am not here to defend the member for Goyder. We all have to stand up on our own feet here and take what comes. But looking at the motion which is basically saying that this was an agenda, I could not say they were an agenda, either, because an agenda, as we all know, would have something like apologies, minutes from the last meeting, it would have a series of dot points. It might have correspondence. But it would have a format which you would normally regard as an agenda for a meeting. This does not read like an agenda. This reads like a statement that has been made. An agenda will basically say, ‘this is what we are going to discuss’. I can’t see how, say, dot point - I will just take one out – ‘We expect to be treated in a manner according to the police/judiciary/legal professions’. It does not sound like a dot point from an agenda.
I do think that the member for Goyder perhaps should have checked his facts on where it came from and where it was used. When we quote from a particular document, we all have to be very careful that we know exactly where it has come from. But on the other hand to say that it is an agenda, I think, is also perhaps suggesting something that it is not.
Madam Speaker, I do not support the motion basically because I believe I have documents at home that do agree that this is, or has some reference to, minutes of a meeting. But, on the other hand, and I state it categorically, we should be very careful of accusing people of making racial decisions about the movement of prisoners unless they have genuine proof. And the only proof - if this is the document that is being used, it seems to be on page 2 - I presume this is the section being referred to:
Ministerial interference in an operational matter (Alice Springs escort) and the fact
this interference was based on racial grounds.
Now, unless someone has a lot more evidence to prove that is the point, then I would not support that. But as this stands, against the motion, I would not support this.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say with regards this censure motion is that, as the member for Macdonnell said, it is really a desperate government that indulges itself in a censure motion against an opposition. The House of Representatives records of these things point clearly to the fact that these are generally considered to be frivolous motions. I can assure the government that there is enough experience within the ranks of the opposition to deal seriously with an issue such as this, to do some research before allegations of such a serious nature are raised in this House.
I do agree that these are very serious allegations that go to the heart of what sort of political direction has occurred through the minister’s office, either by the minister himself personally or by one of his staff, to officers of Corrections. I suggest that if the government felt that it could deal with these serious allegations as quickly as they feel they can deal with them today, I imagine that our current Governor-General would feel quite heartened if he could deal with the allegations that he faces. Allegations are raised and if there is something untoward, evidence will come out. I can tell you that it is unfortunate, to my mind, that one individual has been named in this Chamber today by virtue of this censure motion, because that directly affects that individual. But, believe me, that is not the only individual involved in these sorts of allegations that have been made.
The issue is simply this: it seems to me that, from the questions and the answers that we received today, and the letter that has now been produced from Mr Moore, the Commissioner for Correctional Services, that there are serious answers that we require to be answered, and answered fully.
The facts are that, whether you call it an agenda, a dot point plan, minutes of a meeting, or whatever, there is no question in a number of people’s minds, in Corrections, that something untoward happened in the transfer of prisoners from Darwin to Alice Springs, in that directions were given that certain prisoners were not to go on a particular aircraft. Those concerns were so serious that, we understand, representations were made to a number of ministers. I understand also, that, in due course, assurances were given that this incident would not happen again. I also point to this: the Commissioner for Correctional Services said this in his letter:
The question to the minister was not that the commissioner himself had been directed, the question to the minister was whether the Corrections officers who were involved in that transfer were directed by either himself or members of his staff. So that paragraph does not answer the allegations that have been made.
Secondly, I would say to you this, the last paragraph raises more questions. If no incident occurred; if there has never been anything untoward with regard to the transfer of prisoners from Darwin to Alice Springs; if, as you say, the current minister for Justice, that from October to November, 78 prisoners were transferred, including Aboriginals, why does the Commissioner for Corrections point to one individual plane on one individual day? He says in his last paragraph:
The transfer of prisoners occurs regularly from October to November. What happened on that day? Was that the day when the directions were given, was that the day the commissioner is referring to, was that the day when Corrections officers were very concerned at what happened? We want to know what happened. We want to know what happened, and we will probe this issue until we do find out what happened. It is no good coming into this House and saying, through some frivolous censure motion, that the member for Goyder got the words ‘minutes’ wrong and it should be agenda. That is not the issue. The issue here is that someone is lying. And it is not from this side of the House.
The opposition can make allegations because of the seriousness of those allegations and we expect the answers in this House. At this stage, including your censure motion, all you have done is raise more questions. All you have done is shown that there was one incident that the commissioner is now trying to say, nothing untoward occurred. Why would he point to one incident? Why would he point to one day and one plane? Why would he say, in all the time from October to November, there has never been a problem, no one has ever given directions? Prisoners have been transferred and nothing has ever happened untoward. Do you know why? Because there are a bunch of people out there who believe that from this minister’s office a direction was given, specifically, as the plane was on the tarmac, as prisoners were being prepared and processed for transfer, the direction came through that certain Aboriginal prisoners were not to be moved, certain Aboriginal prisoners were to be taken from the manifest. We understand that representations were then made regarding that direction. We understand also that, further to that, representations were made to the current Justice Minister who, we understand, was aghast, apologetic and said this would not happen again.
Now, when you say, the current Minister for Justice: ‘I can’t recollect, I can’t recollect this’. When you say, current minister for Aboriginal Development, ‘I can’t recollect this’, remember this: people come to your staff, and they say: ‘I expected to see the minister’. You know what they are told? ‘You got me, it is the same thing’. I have had people come to me who have said they have been up to see a minister, they have ended up seeing a minder, and they have been told, ‘You’re seeing me, it’s the same thing’. So the issue is this.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is no relevance to what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BURKE: The issue is clearly this. What happened? What happened in terms of the transfer of prisoners between October and November. Was it on a particular day? Was it on a number of days that reached the point where the Prison Officers Association raised concerns amongst their own members, put it on their own agenda, whether it be minutes or whatever you want to call it, sought representations from the minister, two ministers, and sought satisfaction and got none. That is the allegation, and at this stage we have not received any answer, except the only thing that has come out, is that the member for Nelson has now confirmed that a senior member of the Prison Officers Association raised those concerns.
That is what you have achieved today. The second thing that you have achieved today, our bright, erudite, Deputy Chief Minister, is to produce a letter that seems to me to point to the fact that on 9 November 2001, notwithstanding that the prisoners went, something untoward occurred. That was pointed out to me, so over to you, ducky. Keep going with your censure motions, but out there, amongst the general public, amongst those who are interested, amongst the members of the opposition, you have a lot of answers to give.
Mr AH KIT (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, what a performance. We have a classic example of the member for Goyder misleading the House. He trotted out the agenda, he made us believe and in fact went on Hansard, it was witnessed by all members present, that it was the minutes. We have a situation where my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, explained the system, and what disappoints me in this witch hunt, is that the previous Chief Minister has no idea that there is a process in place, that was put in place by the previous minister for Corrections, and it operated with the same CEO, who said there would be 48 hours notice given for any prison transfers either way, from Alice Springs to Darwin, or Darwin to Alice Springs. This minister passed on to me that it happens when there is an overcrowding situation.
In fact, when this was happening, I spoke to the Chief Executive Officer, the commissioner, when I was visiting my electorate in Ngukurr. He then spoke to officers of my department, there was no, as he says here, in black and white, he is the CEO, his appointment took place when you were in government. Are you saying now, in this House, that he is a liar, and that you are prepared to take up this prison officers’ so-called minutes and, 4 pm today, I will table this, this was on Drive Time, on the news, 26 February 2002. And I quote:
I will be coming back to the evidence shortly.
Peter Maley voice-over. This is what Mr Maley said:
I have denied the allegations.
What really disturbs me is the racial allegations that is attached to it, as an Aboriginal minister. We just heard from the conference on the weekend that they want to recruit more Aboriginal people to their party. Well, this is a nice way of going about it - having a shot at the minister who is an Aboriginal person and chucking racial slurs at him, accusing him of something that they can not corroborate evidence about. In the legal training for the member for Goyder, one would like to think that he understood quite clearly ‘innocent until proven guilty’. What I ask him to do, along with the Leader of the Opposition, is to present the evidence. Trot out the evidence, for goodness’ sake. That’s what we are talking about when we talk about facts. Because at no time was there any instruction given by me or, as far as I am aware, my officers, to hold up this plane. In fact, Commissioner Moore says it happened, and it happened on that date that he had advice it would happen.
Leader of the Opposition, I am not sure whether there were any transfers in October/November other than that one, and there well may not have been. But he does not know that; I do not know that.
Mr Burke: Well, why don’t you know?
Mr AH KIT: I will find out. I cannot recollect any, but you were saying, and you are assuming, that there were three or four of these types of transfers.
What I have done, is I have bounced back and put out a press release which I can table for the members opposite, and it is titled ‘Maley caught misleading parliament’. I table that because, if this is the game the shadow Attorney-General wishes to play, and he wishes also to tie in racial allegations to that, then I am concerned for members on that side of the House and their recruitment campaign. Their president spoke last weekend about recruiting Aboriginal people to the party. This will do nothing when trying to recruit Aboriginal people to their party when they have politicians such as you people trying to take a cheap shot - no evidence, and you are grasping at straws. You really should learn to become a very good opposition. You should learn to produce the facts and evidence because if you haven’t, this parliament has a lot of business to do in terms of its agenda, and it is very important to Territorians that we should not be wasting our time on witch hunts such as this.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, this is fairly unedifying, I would have thought, for the opposition. They have slipped, within a day, back into the racist, divisive politics of the past, something that we on this side of the House will work very, very hard to make sure that they are not allowed to run. They cannot get away with running this sort of agenda again. They lost an election barely six months ago. They have just come from a central council. God knows where that is taking them. It certainly has not given them any light on the hill, in any sense that Chifley may have used.
I will go very briefly to the defence put by the member for Goyder because, basically, he had nothing to say except, ‘I’m a dill’. They loosely refer to them as minutes: ‘I called them minutes. I’m sorry if I’ve misled the House, but I called them minutes. They were loosely referred to as minutes by the guys who gave them to me’. Not very smart. Not very smart for a man, we assume, with legal training, who has something of a trained mind in these matters. Unfortunately, he has left it behind upon his entry to politics. More damaging than that - than the fact that he has just prosecuted himself as a dill, and we’ll leave it there – I am not convinced that there is not more malicious lying beneath that. But if he is happy to portray himself as a dill, we will leave it. I am happy for him to have that title ever after.
More damaging than that though, is this attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to further confuse this matter of whether they are minutes and whether they should be referred to as minutes, or whether they are, in fact, reminder points for members of the Prison Officers Association going into this meeting of the issues that they wanted to raise.
Mr Burke: What’s the difference? What about an agenda, that’s what you …
Mr STIRLING: Well, there is an awful big difference. There is an awfully big difference between a document purporting to minutes - minutes of a meeting which, in all honesty, would have been circulated to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. He or his staff who were present at the meeting would have been asked to have a look at the minutes: ‘Do you concur that these are a true and accurate record of what transpired on the particular day that the meeting took place?’ Nothing, nothing came by way of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. And this turkey up here walks in - and let me go back to this document. Let me go back to this document. It says - I’ll pick one: ‘We have only had industrial actions over safety/security matters and these actions have always had the full support of the Labour [sic] Party (note only very limited action taken to date)’. Is this the form of a minute? I ask myself, is this the form? Did this discussion actually take place? Is this in the form of minutes? It is not! It is not. It is a prompt for the members of the Prison Officers Association to have in their back pocket. When they go into the meeting they can raise these points with the minister.
It is no wonder the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General had no recollection of this, because the particular point that they refer to: ‘Ministerial interference in an operational matter (Alice Springs escort) …’, and the fact this interference was based on racial grounds, was never raised. It was simply never raised. Now, I am more prepared to take the word of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice than this turkey over here who has proven himself to be either incompetent or a liar or a dill or both, or all three.
I am confident he prosecuted himself, but I want to go one step further. Not only did the Leader of the Opposition seek to confuse the difference between reminder points for an agenda in the form of dot points and a series of minutes, which actually record what took place at a meeting - and if you do not know the difference between that you had better go back to your office and sort this out at your next caucus meeting because, by God, there is a huge difference in the two.
But the other point is this, and the most damaging thing to come out of this little exercise this afternoon, is the Leader of the Opposition standing in here and casting aspersions against a senior public servant - someone who I have worked with quite closely as shadow minister for correctional services for many years, Mr Dave Moore, a man who I have the utmost respect for and absolute trust in his integrity. This goose of a Leader of the Opposition not only stands and defends a liar - a liar in his own backbench - but he has the temerity, in this House, to go and accuse a senior public servant of lying. And for that alone, he stands condemned and I am sorry the motion did not go so far as to pick him up in it as well. But certainly, the member for Goyder stands condemned.
Madam Speaker, I ask the motion be put, and all members should vote for it.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I understand that, as the member was speaking closing debate, there is no need for a motion to be put, because they’re not …
Madam SPEAKER: Well, he moved it, so we are putting the motion. You are probably procedurally right, but the motion was put and then we will move to the agreement of the motion. I don’t think he realised what he did.
The question is that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today I report to this parliament and to the people of the Territory on the government’s plans for the coming year to achieve our vision of a stronger Territory with better opportunities for all citizens.
Our overall aim is to build a united Territory, moving forward on social and economic improvements in partnership with all our communities. We want this government to be characterised by openness and accountability and we have already brought in a raft of legislation to achieve those aims. We want the Territory to be a place in which our young people will want to stay, attracting talented people from around the nation and the world, and we have made a start in this area. We want better health and community services for all Territorians, particularly indigenous communities whose health problems are so severe, and we have new plans to achieve this.
We who live here know that the Territory is an exciting and progressive place with people from diverse backgrounds and cultures sharing one of the world’s most beautiful environments. We are now starting to get the message across to others that it is an exciting place for investors on the verge of substantial development as we bring the vast resources of the Timor Sea onshore and rapidly improve our transport infrastructure. The Territory has always seen its future in the marketplaces of Asia and with the improved economic growth of neighbours to our north, our outlook is very positive. Respected economic forecasters, Access Economics and BIS Schrapnel, expect vigorous growth across Territory business and industry in the next five to 15 years. This means more jobs for Territorians and it means that we can confidently plan for a better future.
While brighter prospects beckon, we must take stock of the challenges and opportunities of our present position. My government took office last August with a fully costed plan for reform only to find that a projected $12m deficit was more than ten times that big; a scandalous indictment of our predecessor’s financial management. We have had to modify our plans for the short term in order to get our budget in order. And we are grateful for the support of Territorians as we go through some temporary adjustments on the way to a balanced budget. But not for a minute have we abandoned our broad aims to bring all Territorians a decent standard of living: better health, better education, better job opportunities. We will deliver on our commitments to Territorians.
No one should be in any doubt that we are aware that there is a big gap between our vision of what the Territory could be and the reality for a great many of our citizens, particularly those in indigenous communities. But rather than seeing indigenous people as being the problem, we have inclusive policies of equity and opportunity for all who live here. The Territory has a proud tradition of electing Aboriginal members of parliament and the fact that we now have four indigenous members of parliament is a great source of pride. This is what we mean by a government working in partnership with people. We want long term, effective solutions that come from the people themselves. That is why as good economic managers we have continued to ensure good growth in our health and education budgets along with special programs for indigenous development. This government stands for sound budget management but that is not an end in itself. We are driven by a commitment to make a difference to the lives of Territorians who feel that they have been left behind by Australia’s economic progress. We believe that the whole community is served by raising standards for everyone. No one wants to live in a community characterised by a great divide between the haves and the have nots. That is not the Territory spirit and it is not the Australian way.
We are determined to build a safer Territory, to tackle crime with vigour but we also need to look at its causes. It is in the interests of all Territorians that we do that through strong crime prevention measures and by trying to raise living standards and increasing opportunities for all, particularly for our young people. As in so many other areas of government, this is best done through a whole-of-government approach. Getting all the relevant agencies together to focus on an issue not only cuts waste and duplication, it delivers more effective strategies and solutions. Our aim is to get together the best minds across a broad range of portfolios. This coordinated approach, which is important across all our work, means that we are making progress on many issues even while we have had to tighten our belts. We are working smarter. That is what whole-of-government is about.
With the huge changes in technology of recent times we can help overcome our problems of geography and bring our far flung communities closer together using better communications and the active pursuit of new knowledge. Let’s look for example at the Desert Knowledge Precinct in Alice Springs, and I will be saying more about that later, and new industries like aquaculture in which Territorians are using the latest technology in expanding, for instance, on traditional techniques of barramundi farming. These projects show how we can use our peoples’ skills and our unique location for sophisticated projects of international interest.
On the first day of parliament for 2002, I want to map out the government’s major plans for this, our first full year of government. I want to group our initiatives under two main headings – our economic development agenda and our social agenda. I want to stress again that we believe that these are of equal importance and, in some cases, cannot be easily separated.
Turning first to economic development. I believe this relies on a sound, cooperative partnership between government, private sector, unions, indigenous Territorians and broader community groups. One of our first acts on taking government was to set up the Office of Territory Development in my portfolio to consolidate industry and investment development and kick start major projects. In the long term this will mean more and better jobs for the Territory.
This government has been working hard behind the scenes to bring Timor Sea gas to shore in Darwin and we are confident that we will see firm decisions within the next few months. Our vision is for Darwin to become the fourth gas hub for Australia after the North West Shelf, Bass Strait and Moomba; to provide cheap energy, gas manufacturing, mineral processing and a link to the national grid. Once there is a commitment on the gas, I am confident that Darwin will once again become a focus for major investors. We will not be sitting still on this. We are actively talking to business and industry both here and overseas to encourage their interest and investment dollars.
My government is well advanced in its plans for the development of Glyde Point and Middle Arm industrial estates to accommodate future energy projects, and we are all proceeding full steam ahead on land acquisition and negotiations including environmental processes for the implementation of gas and associated industries as soon as it comes to shore.
We are also well advanced with our proposal to make the Territory the gateway to Asia with the new Alice to Darwin railway creating a central trade corridor. We will reinvigorate the Northern Territory-South Australia working group through the new Labor government in South Australia, and we will give it a much clearer focus under our Office for Territory Development. Some of the joint plans for the future include making Darwin a possible centre for timber processing, identifying products like chilled fish that could be exported via the railway, and further opportunities in mining and resource development. Tourism agencies in both the Territory and South Australia will work together in identifying new tourism opportunities that can flow from the operation of the railway, and there are some very exciting ventures to be discussed in this traditional Territory industry.
I spoke earlier about our opportunities as part of the knowledge economy, one of the fastest growing areas for business and education both in Australia and other developed countries. Our best example at the moment is the Desert Knowledge project which has as its vision a thriving desert knowledge economy in Central Australia. A very significant part of the project will be the Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre which is in advanced stages of planning for submission to the Commonwealth in May this year. The CRC will encourage partnerships at a national and international level between business, industries, universities, CSIRO and other private and public sector agencies building on activities that occur in arid Australia. As recently announced, former Rio Tinto executive Paul Wand will be the chair of the CRC. Paul was formerly Vice-President of Indigenous Affairs for Rio Tinto.
This project aims to be nothing less than a world centre of excellence in remote and arid zone knowledge with research into desert technology, infrastructure, horticulture, historical heritage, Aboriginal art and culture, alternative energies and water research. Scientific researchers are trying to make desert zones, which cover a large proportion of the globe, more productive with better use of water, discovery of better plant types and the use of recycling and waste disposal techniques. There is great potential here to develop new technologies to market to the world, and it is pleasing to see the opportunities opening up for Aboriginal people to become involved.
Tropical knowledge is another area I have put on the agenda for the Office of Territory Development to pursue. There is growing international demand for knowledge on tropical living, medicine, sustainable development and tourism. We plan to build on existing research in this area at the Northern Territory University and there are exciting prospects ahead, particularly when you consider that 40% of the world lives in the tropical zone.
Here in Darwin the government has plans for development of the wharf precinct, and those plans are currently open for public comment. Discussions have been held with major companies and financial groups on the shape of this redevelopment, and management options are now being considered at departmental level.
Meanwhile, we have announced a review of our Planning Act and by the end of the year, public consultation will have occurred and legislative changes brought into this House. Legislation will also be before the House early next year covering builders’ licensing, builders’ registration and home indemnity insurance; a discussion paper will be circulated mid-year for extensive public comment. I should also mention that the Darwin Harbour Plan of Management will be out for public comment before mid-year.
Negotiations with the federal government have been stepped up over the future of Lee Point, and we are now awaiting an answer from them. We are increasingly confident of an outcome soon, and this will see the development of hundreds of residential blocks in an area close to town and close to existing services. Our predecessors talked about this; we will do it.
Turning to communications, we are extending telecommunications infrastructure and services into remote communities which gives us an opportunity to lead social and economic development. Government is supporting the Outback Digital Network, an indigenous owned and managed company, to obtain funds from the Commonwealth’s Networking The Nation program and National Communications Fund to extend digital networks in a number of remote communities. We have begun a process of tendering for provision of government office space to encourage development with developers operating on a level playing field for the first time. This received a great deal of public support when I announced it last November and it is about time we got away from the ad hoc and opaque process of our predecessors. An evaluation panel and independent probity auditor are now assessing expressions of interest and we hope to make decisions on successful tenderers by the end of the month.
My colleague, the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development, has a large number of priorities for the coming year, chief among them matching the capabilities of Territory business for the emerging opportunity in services and supply for the mining, oil, gas and defence industries. The challenge is to maximise the employment and training opportunities as early as possible. There is a great deal of work going on implementing the recommendations of last year’s Economic Development Summit and the regular business round tables.
Other key initiatives in this area are:
Other issues to be tackled over the coming months include work health reform, workers’ compensation matters and emerging issues to do with the collapse of the insurance giant, HIH. In the area of public works, there is a very large amount of activity occurring, and I would just briefly like to mention the following outstanding works. The most important is, of course, ongoing work on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. Across the Territory, more than $325m in contracts have been awarded to Territory businesses to date. Of this about …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Finished?
Madam SPEAKER: Continue, Chief Minister. Ignore the remarks.
Ms MARTIN: Of these contracts awarded on the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, about $175m in business has been won by Darwin companies alone. Presently, about 112 Darwin people are employed directly by companies involved in the railway while many more are employed by subcontractors in a variety of roles and this will only increase as the Dry gets closer.
Other works in progress include:
Before I turn to social policy, I should just mention that we are hard at work on a wide range of Treasury projects including close monitoring of the 2001-02 budget and forward estimates projections, consistent with our deficit reduction strategy and also in preparation for the next budget. I note we were recognised today - and I feel with a great deal of pride - by Moody’s, who have confirmed our rating of AA2 and said that much of this is predicated on the fact that there is a sound fiscal strategy now in place under this new government.
Mr Reed: Had the same last year, the very same last year, Clara.
Ms MARTIN: We are also working hard on the introduction from 2002-03 - I pick up the point from the former Treasurer - advisor, I should say, because he really was not much of a Treasurer - that we exposed the deceit that you had in the budget, and we have put proper budget practices back in place …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Chief Minister cannot use the word ‘deceit’ in relation to the former honourable Treasurer. Whilst she did do it in the censure motion, it has not been demonstrated.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister should withdraw those remarks.
Ms MARTIN: I withdraw the word ‘deceit’ if you don’t like the word deceit, and I use fraudulent. Easy.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is dissenting from your ruling by picking a simile.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, you can’t change the words. Just withdraw.
Ms MARTIN: Withdraw. Okay, the budget was untrue; the one that was brought down by the previous Treasurer was untrue. The figures were not right.
Madam SPEAKER: I suggest that you just continue to …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, just to pick up the point of order, I have to find words to describe what happened in the 2001-02 budget brought down by the former Treasurer. The figures were not true and if the sensitive little possums on that side of the House don’t like it, well, it is a fact, and it is time that they came to terms with it.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, even the words, ‘sensitive little possums’, I believe are out of order. If we are going to use animal names, I could think of a few for the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: I think we are getting frivolous. I just want to say to the Chief Minister, and other members who are making ministerial statements, stick to the script. Please continue your statement.
Ms MARTIN: I really should not insult possums by calling you possums should I; I quite like them.
We are also working quite hard on the introduction from 2002-03 of an accrual output financial framework which will revolutionise the way we in government account for our spending …
Mr Reed: Another CLP initiative.
Ms MARTIN: … making it much more accurate and transparent. And you hadn’t made those final decisions.
We are participating in the national Treasury working group on the development of public/private partnerships. Treasury, the Department of Chief Minister and the Office of Territory Development are developing arrangements suitable for Territory requirements.
Let me now turn to the important work going on under the broad heading, Social Policy. And in the important area of Indigenous Policy, I want to mention that we are close to the establishment of a policy unit in the Department of Chief Minister to provide whole-of-government policy advice. This should result in a more strategic approach to indigenous issues, and it complements the Aboriginal Essential Services and Indigenous Regional Framework Agreements Initiatives being undertaken by my colleague, the Minister for Community Development and the Minister assisting me in Indigenous Affairs.
The main priorities in indigenous affairs are as follows:
In the important area of education, one of our top priorities will be to implement the recommendations of the report by Bob Collins on Indigenous Education, the Learning Lessons report. The time for discussion, the time for prevarication which we saw from the previous government is over, the time for action has begun. In partnership with indigenous people, we will work towards increasing school attendance, and improving the quality of education and training that indigenous children receive, particularly in remote communities. In these sittings, my colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Employment, Education and Training, will be delivering a major ministerial statement on what we have done and the next steps we are taking.
The Northern Territory University is a precious resource and central to the future of this Territory. We want it to reach its potential for excellence. That is why we will be working with the federal government in every way we can over the coming months to ensure the NTU plays its role in our big and ambitious plans for the Territory and its development.
A major election commitment was the injection of 100 new teachers into our schools. This year will see the first instalment of these new teachers. They will be assigned to the areas of most need, and will come as a welcome initiative, not only to the students and parents but to the whole community.
The Territory has never had a jobs plan. There has never been a properly thought out strategy to make the links between training and the jobs of tomorrow. That is why this government is developing our first ever employment strategy.
Turning to health and community services - and I don’t want to pre-empt the minister’s statement on these important matters later today - but I know that the minister will be particularly talking about improved services in Territory hospitals, with a major focus on Alice Springs hospital. She will also talk about the establishment of multi-purpose services at Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek - both services long overdue. She will be discussing the extension of after hours GP services to relieve pressure on Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals, and improvement to the management of Aboriginal health by rolling out five zones in Central Australia. There will be measures to address problems in the nursing workforce, improved services for adolescents and people with disabilities, and their carers.
In the justice area, yesterday my colleague, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, and I launched Crime Prevention NT, a new crime prevention strategy with new regional councils, a new coordinating office based in the Department of Justice and an extra $150 000 for community grants. Overall, Crime Prevention NT will be allocated $6.7m over four years and this is $2.5m above what had been set aside previously for this important work.
Drug law reform is among our most important policies, and we are implementing our three point plan. We will bring legislation forward in the May sittings that will crack down on drug manufacturers, dealers and traffickers where they are vulnerable. The legislation will give police targeted powers to attack drug trafficking and dealing and to crack down on drug houses. It will allow us to recover the profits from drug manufacturers and dealers by strengthening ‘proceeds of crime’ legislation. This work will complement that being done by the Illicit Drug Task Force established by the Minister for Health and Community Services and by the Parliamentary Committee on Substance Abuse chaired by the member for Arafura.
I am committed to do more to enhance the status of women in the Territory, and I will be announcing some key measures to recognise the contribution of women, both past and current, in the very near future. I should also mention the coordinated and whole-of-government approach to the issue of domestic and family violence that is now taking place, with further initiatives to be presented in the coming months in the areas covered by our Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy.
We will also be doing more to better coordinate policies affecting young people in the Territory, and also our senior Territorians. And not forgetting our strong commitment to the Arts and Sport and Recreation, both so important in contributing to the Territory lifestyle that we all value so much - specifically in the area of arts, a commitment in the next financial year of an increase in the arts sponsorship dollars of $250 000 each year.
One of our key strengths is that we are a successful multicultural society, and we are very proud of our ethnic communities and the way they interact with each other. In this regard, we are, I believe, a model for the rest of Australia. In recognition of this, we have increased, by $250 000 per annum, funds available through the Office of Ethnic Affairs in support of multiculturalism. Commencing in the next financial year, the Ethnic Affairs sponsorship program will increase from the current $447 000 a year to nearly $700 000 a year. This makes it, in dollar terms, the fourth largest of its type, after New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, but in per capita terms, we are ten times bigger than the next most generous program in Australia, and that is in the ACT.
In conclusion, when we look at the Territory’s potential, there is boundless scope for economic and social development, while building a united and prosperous community. We believe people want strong communities, with good health care and a decent education, and the chance for them and their children to improve job prospects and living standards. We have great potential as a region, and the main reason for that is our resilient and resourceful people. When we think of what we have achieved already, we can be confident about the future. Let’s not be limited by an old-fashioned, unimaginative vision of what the Territory is. Instead, let’s open our minds to the big opportunities that lie before us.
I have given this parliament a broad look at some of the major programs and activities for the coming twelve months. My ministers will be making further detailed reports and statements to this parliament over the next few days, and I urge members to take careful note of these programs which I know will be of interest for all Territorians. I am confident that if we can work together in real partnerships, we can achieve this vision for a truly united Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, this statement today purports to be the Chief Minister’s vision for where the government is going over the next 12 months. President Bush, Mk 1 had a few problems with vision. Every time President Bush Mk 1 talked about vision, he always had a lot a problem trying to enunciate it to people. Certainly, what we are seeing with this Chief Minister is a number of visions.
She had a vision on the Northern Territory prior to the election. She had a vision that she brought out when eventually she brought down the mini-budget, and now we find that there is another vision for the first twelve months of government.
A member interjecting.
Mr BURKE: You can call that blurred vision or double vision or triple vision, whatever it is. But the real thing is this, this is a government that has promised to hit the ground running. This is a government that said they had a plan prior to the election, ‘Bring on the election, we have our plan, we are ready to run’. Well, we are still waiting for the plan. We are getting plenty of vision, we are still waiting for the plan. What we are seeing is that public servants have been well and truly gutted. That is the only action that I have seen, so far, in this government. A well and truly gutted the public service.
Mr Kiely: Forgotten Planning for Growth already, haven’t you? Pruning for growth, they used to call that one. Talk about visions. Foundations for Our Future - what a crock!
Mr BURKE: I will pick up on the member for Sanderson. I was not going to raise this in detail, but we will talk about it. You cannot help that you have one of those runaway motor mouths. You ought to put your brain into gear first and you will learn a lot.
I simply ask members to make a point of comparison, if you like. If you want to see the difference between real vision, a real demonstration of where the Territory is going, have a look at the old Foundations for Our Future. Have a look at the six booklets that were produced, and have a look at the detail that was in those books. The current Chief Minister described them as a glossy, but I tell you what, if you listened to that ministerial statement today, most of it is in Foundation Five.
Most of it is in Foundation Five, and that part of it that is in Foundation Five that she talked about today, is really poorly presented in the ministerial statement she gave today. If you want to get some more information about the knowledge economy, if you want to find out how timber processing could occur in the Northern Territory, if you want to talk about the Desert Knowledge project and how that could go ahead, have a look at Foundations for our Future and you will learn a lot. You certainly won’t learn it from this ministerial statement.
In fact, the first thing I would say about this ministerial statement from the Chief Minister is: why did you bring it? I have sat and heard some pretty lousy ministerial statements in the time that I have been in this House, but this would have to rank as one of the worst in terms of, first of all, it comes from the Chief Minister and secondly, it is so lacking in anything that has any sort of details or anything that you can grab onto, that has any meat, anything that does not refer to consulting more, planning more, establishing a new bureaucracy, considering this a bit longer, delaying this, reorganising ourselves. If you try and weave through and find anything else besides that, all you end up with is the CLP capital works program. That is all you end up with. And then she has the gall to point to those programs and claim some sort of ownership for them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you that I am just amazed that the Chief Minister would allow it, because these things are prepared by the Department of the Chief Minister. They scurry around the departments to find out what people are doing: ‘Quick, get some stuff together so we can get it together in a ministerial statement to show that the government is doing something’. And after all of that effort, this is it? This is the plan for the Northern Territory over the next 12 months? This is a total disgrace! To bring it out, to trot into this House and say: ‘This is where we are going in the Northern Territory’. Gee whiz, it really is.
It reflects this - it reflects that there is nothing going on. That is what it reflects, because they have scurried around and they have found nothing. So they said: ‘Gee, what do we do? We’ll pull together some stuff. Let’s go to the old Foundations for Our Future. We’ll talk about this, this and this. That will give us some waffly statements to make. And let’s point to the capital works program and that will do us. That will do for our plan for the next 12 months’. That is what has happened in this ministerial statement.
This is a clear demonstration of a government that is floundering. Either the public servants are floundering because they are waiting for direction or they are waiting for funding in terms of focussing their own effort, or you have a situation where there is no direction coming from the government or, probably what is most likely, you have a government sitting back and probably all becoming very good Christians and praying every night that things get better. Let’s just hope that 26 years of CLP effort pays off. That is the important thing. When you want to talk about where the Northern Territory is going in the future, what are the things that are going to make us great, spend a little time in reflection. It takes time, it takes effort, and what you are seeing now and the sort of things you are trotting out, is the culmination in many respects of a lot of CLP effort, a lot of hard work. You certainly won’t improve things by more bureaucracies, more consultation, and certainly focussing your effort in the areas which won’t create one job.
The most important indictment of that, reflected in the statement today, is the Yellow Pages. The Chief Minister points to the fact that she is grateful for the support of Territorians for her fiscal strategy. Well, I will tell you what the support of Territorians for her fiscal strategy is: business confidence in the Northern Territory six months ago was 41% and, more often than not, was closer to 50%. November, go back years. We stood up and we proudly pointed to the fact that business confidence in the Northern Territory was the best in Australia. You read the business confidence Yellow Pages Report and even the reporters themselves were astounded. This was the second time. It is getting worse. What is happening in the Northern Territory? 41% six months ago was business confidence in government. Let’s get is straight - this is business confidence in government. In November, it went from 41% down to 5% - plus 5%. And now, in February it is minus 12% - negative 12%.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BURKE: Can you believe that it is negative 12%? Can anyone believe that business confidence in the government after seven months in office is now negative 12%? And don’t say it is 11 September; that is not business confidence in government. This should have …
Mr Stirling: No, a little bit to do with your deceit on the budget.
Mr BURKE: The Deputy Chief Minister says it has a bit to do with our deceit in government. If that is the case, follow your own logic. Business should be confident in the fiscal strategies that you are bringing forward. Business should be confident in the fact that we now have a government that has a hold of these financial issues, is working to our benefit, is bringing forward policies that will be good for our business. By seven months in office they should have seen all of that. What do we have? Negative 12% - it is an absolute disgrace. That is the support of Territorians for you at the moment. You are the nose, big time. Read the Yellow Pages Index and it is getting worse.
Let’s just quickly pick through this waffle, then I will give it all a rest. Page 1: ‘We are now starting to get a message across for others that this is an exciting place for investors …’. Now starting to get the message across. What happened in the last 26 years? What happened in the last five years? Has there been a void in these things? What have you done? What have you done in getting your message across to investors? Tell us. I look forward to hearing all of the initiatives that you have brought forward to get your message across to investors that it is an exciting place for investors to live. ‘My government took office last year with a fully costed plan for reform …’. Well, not quite fully costed. There was a $55m save on wasteful consultants that you were going to cut to $5m.
Mr Henderson: Your black hole, that wasn’t factored into it.
Mr BURKE: Well, we had a consultant black hole. We now have a business confidence black hole. I tell you, if I stand up I would rather have the black hole that existed six months ago than the business black hole you have at the moment. $50m miscalculation in ‘our fully costed plan for reform’. And ‘I appreciate the support of Territorians as we go through some temporary adjustments’. Now, the temporary adjustments are this: gut the public service. A government that pointed to high debt levels in the Northern Territory, railed every day saying: ‘The highest per capita debt all around Australia’. First thing they do, borrow another $100m. The fact is that the punters have not figured that out, out there yet. They have not figured it out yet, but they will eventually. That the first thing you do - a government that railed against high deficit, that said the debt levels in the Northern Territory were totally unacceptable, the first thing they do in government - borrow another $100m. Then what do they do? They put $90 registration levies on the average punter’s individual car. That really was well received, and I am sure that has the strong support of Territorians.
Mr Kiely: Constituents. Have a bit of respect for them. Punters! No respect, and that comes all the way through in everything you do. No respect for the people.
Mr BURKE: The member for Sanderson wants to give a ministerial statement. Do you want to comment in this House? I am happy to let you go.
What we are looking for now is what other taxes and charges are going to be brought in. That is what I would like to see. If they are getting their fiscal circumstances in order, I want to see what other taxes and charges they are going to bring in, or what guarantee they are going to give to Territorians that those taxes and charges won’t occur.
‘We have special programs for Aboriginal development’. Now, what are those special programs? Because if there are special programs that have been introduced for indigenous development in the last six or seven months, I would like to hear what they are. But certainly I am not aware of them, and it is not good enough for a Chief Minister to say, we have special programs and then not pointing to one of those programs. ‘We are making progress on many issues and we are working smarter’. What issues? What issues are you making progress on that are very important, that you are working smarter and what will be the result of that smart work and that progress? Nothing in this statement, Mr Deputy Speaker, that points to the actions in this paper.
‘One of the first acts upon taking government was to set up the Office of Territory Development’. Haven’t yet got a chairman. A director. There is one person named Bob Collins who has a Landcruiser and swans around and is called the Ambassador for Territory Development. I understand that there is no director yet appointed to the Office of Territory Development. I might be wrong but that is what I understand. I understand they don’t even have an office yet. I understand they want to move into the 14th floor of NT House with good views but they are not there. If you are going to point to how good the Office of Territory Development is, one of the first things you could point to is they have themselves set up. That is not a lot to ask. Especially as it was a high priority of the Chief Minister and it was one of the first acts when she took government was to set up this office that does not have an office. It does not have anywhere to sit and does not have a director. After seven months in office.
‘The government has been working hard behind the scenes to bring Timor Sea gas to shore in Darwin’. Well, I look forward to you telling me what is the ‘behind the scenes’ work that this government, this Northern Territory government, has done to bring Timor Sea gas onshore to Darwin. And you point to the fact that you facilitated the agreement between Phillips and the East Timor government. Well certainly, the Australian Foreign Minister does not agree they facilitated the agreement between the Phillips company and the East Timorese government. Certainly the federal Minister for Resource Development does not believe they facilitated the agreement between Phillips and the East Timor government. In fact, I understand that both of them are pretty concerned that they were patting themselves on the back up here, suggesting that they had facilitated it.
It is one thing to have good relationships with the Prime Minister of East Timor, congratulations. You have good relations with Mr Alkatiri; congratulations. But don’t point to good relations with him to the fact that that therefore, because we get on well together, because we chat together that he is prepared to give away large monies in taxation to East Timor because you get on well. I mean, let’s get a bit more serious than that. What has the East Timorese government done? What concessions have they made? What concessions have Phillips made that you facilitated? Because that is what you are claiming. I don’t know, maybe I do need a briefing, but someone needs to tell me exactly you have done. Because, so far, all I have seen is, ‘we facilitated’. Well, tell us what you have done to facilitate.
The Chief Minister came into this House this morning and demonstrated her knowledge of this by saying that things have changed significantly for gas onshore in the last six months. Six months, she said, six months ago floating LNG was a possibility. Well, have you read the latest Woodside annual report? Ask if the Minister for Resource Development has because the latest Woodside report by Mr Akehurst for the first time ever, disappointingly so, has come out in favour of a floating platform for the Timor Sea. Disappointingly so, very disappointingly so. The first time that the Chief Minister comes in here today and suggests by implication, in her normal way, that somehow that issue has been resolved. That issue is worse than it has ever been. That is the fact of it. And we have some real difficulties and we will work through together.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister just asked me when I had my briefing. I had a briefing by a senior officer of the Department of Resource - OAD, whatever they call it; I have no idea what they call it now - who briefed me on directions from his own minister. I assume that is the briefing you intended me to have, to ensure I was fully briefed.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: If the Chief Minister would like to brief me personally, I am pleased to have it. I need to have those officers in the room because you do not have a clue what the issues are relating to gas onshore for Northern Territory. And it is certainly not a good situation with regard to the issues with floating LNG.
Ms Martin: Get a life.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister said: ‘Get a life’ - if you could expand on what that comment is supposed to mean. It seems to be her favourite comment, but it makes no sense to me.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said before, the delivery of gas onshore is very important to the Territory, it is very important that we work through these issues together. It is very important also that we give credit to the Commonwealth ministers and officers who have been involved, little of which I have seen so far. I understand that the Minister for Resource Development was ticked off when he got to Canberra because of some of the things that he said, or his Chief Minister had said, with regards to claiming things that they did not do and paying no cognisance to the work that has been done. And also to translate to Territorians and those investors that are critically interested in making decisions and real timelines and invest in the Timor Sea, when these projects realistically will occur.
It is one thing to talk about travelling all around the world talking to businesses, but the minister himself knows, and as I know, that without Sunrise Gas none of these other industries really will occur at Glyde Point. The issue of Bayu-Undan gas, the treaties resolved, the Commonwealth agreeing to the arrangements to be made between Phillips and the East Timor government, I am very hopeful that Bayu-Undan gas alone will flow to shore. It is quite another thing to then suggest that somehow the issues with regard to Sunrise are being worked through successfully and that the Northern Territory is poised to become the fourth gas hub. We all hope it does. But it is a long way off in terms of realising that and in terms of timelines, the best things that can occur, these issues are some way off because of the circumstances that have changed quite dramatically in the last six to twelve months.
‘My government is advanced in its plans for the development of Glyde Point and Middle Arm Industrial Estates’. That planning has to occur, I agree with that and that planning was well and truly in train prior to the change in government. ‘We are well advanced with our proposal to make the Territory the Gateway to Asia.’ That is a new phrase! That is a phrase I have never heard before: that we are going to become the Gateway to Asia. It has been the catch cry of CLP governments for the last 26 years and it is here that the Chief Minister has the gall to say, ‘with our proposal’ to make the Territory the Gateway to Asia. Be honest, be real and talk about what you are actually doing, rather than claiming things that you have no real personal effort in being involved in.
As I said before, the Chief Minister also points to efforts in tourism that are occurring. Efforts with regards to timber processing, chilled fish, tourism opportunities associated with the railway, and the Desert Knowledge project. The Desert Knowledge project was an election platform of the CLP government and also the CRC efforts were well in train long before the election and the submissions to the Commonwealth were being prepared over a very long period of time. These are not things for this coming year. These are things that have been in train, in progress and, in some cases, almost at fruition for some time.
‘Tropical knowledge is another area I have put on the agenda for the Office of Territory Development’. Tropical knowledge, it is all in the Foundations for Our Future. It has been around for ages. ‘I’ve put it on the agenda,’ she says. What about the special arrangements that we made to get CSIRO to establish a laboratory at a cost of $1m additional? Do you know why? To do tropical research. That was done some time ago. Decisions of a previous CLP government.
She talks about reviews to our Planning Act. Now that is something I would like to see. I would like to …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: ‘Plans to review the Planning Act’, it says here. I look forward to seeing those plans. I understand that the Labor policy will be to allow third party appeal. I am sure that will get the strong support of Territorians. Nothing except to say like other things here that after some time and after a year of consultation, legislative changes will eventually be brought into the House. Builders’ licencing, builders’ registration and indemnity insurance, good, problematic, look forward to see what is going to happen in that regard.
‘Negotiations with the federal government have been stepped up over the future of Lee Point …’ - something that was close to fruition. Defence Housing Authority have planned to build 300 homes there for some time but they want to get rid of …
Mr Henderson: But you couldn’t close the deal. We have.
Mr BURKE: We couldn’t close the deal! Because the Defence Housing Authority has a need to sell off all those old houses in the northern suburbs and move into new houses in the Lee Point area. Negotiations that we commenced with the federal government - there are problems with regard to issues in handing over that land because of the platform of the radar and other things, but I certainly expect that to be settled as soon as possible.
They have a new process of tendering for provision of government office space - good. I hope that is honest, open, accountable, transparent. The Chief Minister says there is an independent probity auditor. I hope that occurs. I am told that Dennis Bree is going to developers and saying: ‘You put in 50% and we will take 50%’. ‘You put in 5000 m and we will take two-and-a-half’. Some of them are telling me that. I hope that is honest, open, and accountable. I would like to know - and I would have thought it would be a very easy thing for the Chief Minister to do when she talks about the public’s support for getting this office space - surely you could give us an indication of what office space is actually needed? What government departments do you intend to move? What vacant office space will be left? Surely, that is not too much to ask in terms of telling us what the requirements are, what the good planning is that is occurring, and how are these processes going to be followed through. Because we certainly don’t want a situation where for the sake of getting development at any cost, we have a situation where there is inordinate amount of vacant office space in a time when the Territory is suffering a severe financial situation, particularly with the economy.
‘Key initiatives for the Minister for Resource Development …, I would say the first priority would be to take over from the present Chief Minister. That would be his first priority. The other priorities that he would have here, as I said, the key initiatives are all contained in Foundation Five. There is a mention here about the Year of the Outback. What are you doing about the Year of the Outback? I would like to know. It is this year. This is the plan of vision for this year. What monies have been allocated for the Year of the Outback? I hope there have been some substantial monies allocated to the Year of the Outback because that is a very important issue.
She then goes on to talk about other issues to be tackled over the coming months: work health reform, workers’ compensation, HIH. We asked before, during the mini-budget, whether there were going to be new taxes involved, new charges involved. We are still waiting for any sort of indication as to what is going on.
Then it goes on to say in the area of public works, there is a very large amount of activity occurring. Railway - CLP initiative, all set, all done. Game, set and match long before you came to government. The only thing that I recall was a continual carping criticism about what jobs might come from that railway, whether it was of benefit to the Northern Territory and how under no circumstances should the Northern Territory government put in any more money to facilitate that financial situation being closed. That is what I recall about your support for the railway. ‘$175m in business won by Darwin companies’ - good. Only 112 people employed. I am not criticising; I am simply saying I would like some information as to how the $175m in business won by Darwin companies only translates to 112 people employed. It seems to me there should be a better result for that $175m.
They then go on to talk about $11.3m development of Alice Springs Convention Centre. This is the Chief Minister’s plan for the coming 12 months. She points to the $11.3m development of the Alice Springs Convention Centre. Game, set and match long before she came into government; CLP initiative. Good to see it is on time, on target. $30.7m for Alice Springs Hospital development; another CLP initiative. $87m for East Arm Port development; another CLP initiative. $37.7m for Royal Darwin Hospital; CLP initiative. $1m for Tanami upgrade - we spent the best part of $1m every year to conduct essential upgrade works on that road. This is not major improvement; this is essential to restore that road after the Wet Season, so there is nothing to crow about there. And the $6m construction of the high level Hugh River Bridge and approaches - a Commonwealth contribution – good to see it is going ahead.
The Chief Minister talks about policies with regard to Aboriginal developments. I am sure the member for Arafura must see these things as motherhood statements by now. ‘Main priorities are Aboriginal economic development including jobs and training’ - been said continually for years. ‘Introduction of a broad model of regional partnerships for delivery of services’ - oh yeah? What’s all that about? No detail.
‘Resolution of outstanding land issues’ - hope you make progress on that, really do. I would be interested to know what cases that were in the courts have now all been resolved, whether or not there is no need for litigation. You claim to have such an incredibly good relationship there would be no need for any of that litigation. The Chief Minister used to say: ‘All you need to do is sit down and talk about it.’ It would be interesting to see if the Solicitor-General is out of a job. We have sat down and talked about it as a government and those vested interests, and got it all going, and improving outcomes in the areas of health, justice and education.
‘The NT has never had a jobs plan’. The Chief Minister says the NT has never had a jobs plan. Well, I will tell you what: the jobs plan we had in the Northern Territory saw some of the lowest unemployment figures in Australia for many, many years. The jobs plan that is actually happening in the Northern Territory, the jobs plan that this government has put in place is 8.4% unemployment, historically high and an absolute disgrace in any government of any kind. You should be ashamed to be sitting with not only a situation where we have the second highest unemployment in Australia coming from what was an historically excellent situation to a drastic situation in the space of seven months, but also, coupled with that, historically low levels of business confidence - minus 12%, which is an absolute disgrace, particularly when you put those two issues together.
There is nothing to crow about in this statement. There is no detail in this statement. I am interested in the comments the Minister for Health and Community Services will make either in response to this statement, and in other statements, because there are certainly a lot of issues here. The Chief Minister talks about she will be discussing the extension of after-hours GP services. I would like to know what context you are going to talk that about that in. Does that mean that you are restoring GP services to Palmerston? I don’t agree. I don’t believe you need 24-hour GP services in Palmerston; I believe you need a paramedic or a registered nurse - and I have said this consistently, and it is a cheap model and it should be put in place because the people want it, and that is: you have a 24-hour service system that requires that after perhaps 10 o’clock at night - could be earlier - a qualified registered nurse essentially triages those who come there. If those who have to go to Royal Darwin are in the hands of the system at a place like Palmerston and the system then transports them to Darwin Hospital - that is why we co-located St John Ambulance there. But she says here, extension of after-hours GP services in Darwin and Alice Springs Hospital so I am interested in seeing what initiatives come from that.
In summary, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can only reiterate that if this is the Chief Minister’s plan for the coming year, she has no plan. If this is the Chief Minister’s plan of action for the coming year, there is no action. And if this is the example of the activity of departments under this new Labor government, there is no action. This is what this ministerial statement says. This ministerial statement is a disgrace and it is reinforced by the fact that we have historically high unemployment and we have an historically high lack of business confidence in the Northern Territory. The Chief Minister should stand condemned.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to see a little more life in the other side. It is always sad when the Leader of the Opposition is left to stand and prosecute all on his own. It is one thing to empty the galleries up here and it is probably approaching the dinner hour, anyway, but it is another to hit members from your own side of the Chamber except for the member for Greatorex.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe the member on his feet is reflecting on the absence or otherwise of people in this House which offends standing orders.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Withdraw that, please.
Mr STIRLING: I will withdraw the comment that the opposition benches seemed - what can I say? - less than full. Less than full, Mr Deputy Speaker, less than full. But it is very clear, very clear, that the Leader of the Opposition is still in denial. One wonders, listening to him this evening, how on earth they lost the election. If all that he said was true, how on earth did they lose the election? He is certainly in denial on the question of whether, when we were on that side of the House, we supported the railway. And the Leader of the Opposition would remember a conversation we had at the back of the Chamber on the night that you brought the last bill in on the railway - the ‘whatever it takes’ bill - and I raised the question at the briefing: ‘Why isn’t this capped at a certain number of millions of dollars?’ I could not get the answer at the briefing. They said: ‘We suggest you talk to the Chief Minister. We suggest you talk directly to the Chief Minister’. And we had that little discussion up here at the back of the Chamber. We supported that bill, whatever it took, and you come in here and say you never supported the railway.
Every bill that ever came in to this House was supported by this side of the House when we were in opposition. I do not want to dwell too much on what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. But I thank the member for Sanderson for putting this in front of me. It is ‘$1.5bn gas pipeline deal gets okay’, Sunday Age, 23 December 2001, by Rob McGirke and Linda McSweeny:
He is talking about arrangements with Phillips:
Mr Alkatiri said ‘an important factor in the equation was the election of Labor’s Clare Martin, a long time
friend, as head of the Northern Territory government’. He had been in conflict with her predecessor, the
CLP Chief Minister, Denis Burke.
Well, we had better let that one rest there. He wants to know what we have done, he wants to know what the Chief Minister has done. Read that one for a start.
The ministerial statement delivered by the Chief Minister today, and the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition that we just heard, provide such dramatic contrast, it really does, and it really does confirm what the voters of the Northern Territory realised six months ago, the Chief Minister does have the vision and the energy necessary to take the Territory forward. Last November, in her mini-budget, she mapped out the pathway of putting the Territory’s fiscal position back into a sustainable one, and we were told very clearly on election that it was totally unsustainable. So she mapped out the road to repairing the fiscal inheritance of the former CLP government, and her responsible mini-budget contrasts, as I said, dramatically with the economic vandalism of those opposite and the mess that they left us to inherit on election in August.
It is incredible to me that even once the truth of the black hole was out there, and the dimensions of it, that all that the Leader of the Opposition could come up with was the mantra, ‘spend, spend, spend, the money is there’, tears in his eyes, ‘spend, spend, spend’. Well, that is what they have been doing, and the Territory was broke, broke and getting broker. And they were kicked out of office just in time from the point of view of the Territory.
So today, on the first sitting day of 2002, in her statement, the Chief Minister spelt out an action plan, a plan of the immediate and of the future and I think Territorians will be well pleased with their choice back in August last year to make Clare Martin Chief Minister, because she has already shown her capacities to date. Her statement today makes it clear that over the next 12 months we will continue to see responsible, active government under her leadership. I am delighted with the priorities that she mapped out. I look forward to the year ahead. Our plans for the Territory, we know, are ambitious, we know that, but we are not going to sit still. Our duty is, first and foremost, to repair the mess that the former minister for Health contributed to in such a big fashion, single handedly. But as the Chief Minister’s statement outlined, our priority is to deliver for all, so the Chief Minister successfully balanced the need to responsibly develop the economy and simultaneously make the Territory a better place to live for all. I am excited about doing my bit in my areas of portfolio responsibility - more police, more teachers, better schools, better outcomes. And the last six months have been good …
Ms Carney: Where are they?
Mr STIRLING: Well, ‘Where are they?’, she says? For 26 years they presided over a decline in the quality of education. We have been here 180 days, and they say: ‘Where are they?’ A hospital system that was falling apart, and you have the temerity to say: ‘Where are they?’, you goose!
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr STIRLING: The last six months have been good, and the next period will be even better, having heard the Chief Minister outline that program today. This year alone will see an extra 20 teachers come into the system, the first instalment against those extra 100 over this term of office. In consultation with the Australian Education Union - something they weren’t very good at - the focus for recruitment for those 20 teachers in this first year will be English as a Second Language qualified and Special Needs trained, with perhaps the balance tending to the number of Special Needs. We know that the CLP refused to put on the specialist teachers and refused to address the equity issues, particularly in regional and remote areas, raised by the lack of these teachers.
In indigenous education, the Learning Lessons implementation task force will have their first meeting in the next couple of weeks, unlike our predecessors, who warmly embraced the Collins report for about 48 hours - from memory, 48 hours. They said it is the most wonderful thing they have ever seen, and then failed to ever mention it again. When the former shadow minister for Education, the member for Stuart, railed against their inaction on this every sittings after it was tabled, wanting to know what and how many of the recommendations had been implemented, it was ‘don’t mention the war’. They went to ground, they went to ground.
We will work towards implementing the recommendations, because we want to overcome the culture of failure perpetuated by the CLP and we want indigenous students to succeed in their studies. We want them to learn. I am encouraged by the positive stance taken by the new federal minister for Education, one Dr Brendan Nelson. In stark contrast to these turkeys opposite, he stood outside NTU about a month ago - and I met with him as recently as 7 am this morning for breakfast to go over a couple of these issues again - in stark contrast to these turkeys, he stood before the cameras and said: ‘Whatever else occurs while I’m Minister for Education, whatever else occurs across Australia, I will believe I have failed unless we can turn outcomes around in indigenous education’. I salute him for that remark, for the courage that it took, unlike you blokes who would not even sign off on an agreement because it demanded that you sign off to improve outcomes in indigenous education. Well, it is a big difference. Brendan Nelson is a big bloke compared to you turkeys, and I am proud to stand with him, on the other side of the political fence, because he has more guts and more balls than you will ever have.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw the last remark, but it is true. We as a government share his vision, as opposed to these blokes opposite, who simply could not bring themselves to committing to improved outcomes. ‘Hang your money, hang your $12m, we’re not interested. You are demanding that we oversee an improvement in outcomes for indigenous students’. You don’t want it. I tell you, in the two or three weeks when I became aware of it on becoming a minister, I spoke with Dr Kemp by phone, and he was most appreciative that we were prepared to sign off on improved outcomes for indigenous students and very happily picked up the millions of dollars at stake. Well, it is a crying shame the attitude these blokes took to indigenous education. They stand absolutely condemned in relation, and in contrast, to the new federal Minister for Education who is worth the whole ten of them together, and more.
The same commitment we bring to indigenous education will be found in our approaches to health and housing, training and employment and encouragement of indigenous enterprises in indigenous communities. They have been left to languish behind the development of the rest of the Territory in economic terms. It is the failure of the CLP to stand up and address these issues over the past 26 years that has lead to chronic unemployment in these communities and growing substance abuse. That is part of the legacy left by the CLP that we won’t resile from. They are very real challenges and we take them head on.
I heard a gentleman a couple of weeks ago in Nhulunbuy who was in Yirrkala in the mid-1960s prior to the Nabalco joint venture taking off. He had one of three vehicles at the time on the peninsula and he used to take the local Yolgnu out on hunting and fishing expeditions. He told me that when he was at that community in the mid-1960s, all of the local Yolgnu living at Yirrkala were all employed in meaningful employment in a range of community levels. He could not believe, coming back to Nhulunbuy in 2002, walking around the community and into the council office, that he found one blackfella working in the council office but he found a whole lot of non-Aboriginal people filling all of the full time jobs. That is the challenge before us, and we will take it on because, unlike the CLP, we are prepared to face down these challenges head on and broker partnerships to build a better future for us all.
Those initiatives and commitments will be underpinned by the development of a high-level policy unit in the Department of Chief Minister with the ability to provide advice on a whole-of-government basis. We know that we are not going to turn around 27 years of neglect by our political opponents overnight. We recognise that. It is a bit cute to come in and say: ‘Where are they? Where are they?’, after six months. I mean, where do you get off? But we will certainly give it our best shot over the next three-and-a-half years.
We will tackle drug law reform. We know the problems being caused by drugs and those who profit from them. We know the links to property crime with hardened drug users. The CLP defeated meaningful amendments put forward by us last year in debate. The member for Wanguri nods because he was part of that debate as well. Those amendments would have more effectively empowered police, but they did not want to know, because they were about grandstanding. They were about grandstanding and heavily into posturing, but they did not want anything that would adequately move to effectively address those serious problems of drug trafficking and manufacturing.
Whilst we have been putting the basic building blocks in place, I think it is an opportunity to look, in fact, at what the opposition has done in the six months since the election. What have they done towards preparing the road map for where they want to take the Territory? Their politics of division, the credit card economics, were rejected six months ago when they received their worst election outcome in history. Today provided an opportunity to perhaps turn the page over and gave the opposition an opportunity to provide Territorians with an insight into what they have learnt from the voters, and what they will do and promote over the next twelve months or so. The Opposition Leader is the spokesperson, so it was his speech in that sense. But you would have expected it to reflect the thoughts and priorities of the CLP shadow ministers. What they revealed today to me is that the Leader of the Opposition and, in fact the entire opposition team, has wasted its first six months in opposition and it has learnt absolutely nothing from what the voters had to say six months ago. And when we see how they have spent their time since the election defeat, it is hardly surprising that today’s effort really is so disappointing. Because if we look at the priorities of the Opposition Leader over recent times, his landmark contributions to public debate up until the run-up to Christmas largely centred around how tough things were, how hard things were for him. His emotional outburst - certainly before Christmas - centered around the fact that he was not getting the media attention that he previously got. And, of course this year more recently, he has been focussed on the amount of taxpayers’ funds he and his personal staff consume.
Well, last Friday was a ripper - an absolute abomination. It said it all, because this is what he said last Friday. He told Territorians of his plan to shut his office down because he should have more money. He should have more money! The one who squandered it, the bloke who put us into debt to about $130m, was going to close the doors because he had to wear budget tightening of 21% when ministers on this side of the House wore a budget cut of 27%. And the Treasurer is still to explain to me how they get away with a 21% cut while we have to take a 27% cut. Now, that is a tantrum - a tantrum put on by the Leader of the Opposition that shows how this opposition, as a whole, is serving the Territory. And I have wondered if the Chief Minister and Treasurer got a submission from the Leader of the Opposition along the lines - as we saw reported in the NT News – ‘Give us more money or close us down’. Because I for one, if it got to Cabinet in the form of a Cabinet submission, would be looking pretty closely at option two.
I asked my staff to ring Jim O’Brien when I saw it in the paper. I said: ‘Ask Denis and Jim to come up for a bit of chat. I am a bit keen to explore option two’. Well, they did not come up. But now, if it is the truth that they have to close the doors, hand on our hearts, this is the last time, presumably, we will have a formal opposition in this Chamber. When we come back here - whenever we do at the next sittings - we will be facing not an opposition of ten and an Independent in the Chair and Independent from the seat down here, we will have not two but twelve Independents. That means no Whip, that means no Leader of the Opposition, that means no Deputy Leader. Good, good. Good for the Territory, save the bottom line.
Well, I would have thought that the opposition should consider itself lucky. We copped the 27% cut, he gets away with just 21%. Well, I say welcome - welcome to the reality of opposition. I did it for 10 years; it ain’t easy. I admit that. I did it for 11 years.
It is important to keep the opposition there, and we do not want them to abandon that status, because the opposition really is there to balance the democracy and keep the government on its toes and to offer an alternative approach. But I don’t blame, single handedly, the Leader of the Opposition for the abysmal performance here this evening because he has been let down and betrayed by those around him. Whether they were in the Chamber or not, matters nought. He has been let down and his party room is a hot house of would-bes. Would-bes if they could-bes, and broken down hacks - one eye on the golf course and one eye on the super bill ticking away - ticking away. How long to go? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, for one, has provided no support. He has been spotted sunning himself in Queensland. His appearances in public have been rare and really only brought about by his attempt to defend the indefensible in his reign as Treasurer. Now, the deputy should either stand by his leader or get out, it is as simple as that. And the would-be if they could-be leaders apparently have had no focus in developing and working the opposition into a position on good public policy, or even being prepared to do the things that a good opposition should be doing.
The first would-be if he could-be leader, the member for Drysdale, of course, is in this rather difficult position of being in the centre of the storm over manipulation of budgets and his involvement as former health minister in preparing budget figures and, of course, trying to distance himself from the fact that he presided over a failing health system. And health was a key issue in the last election. A key area where Labor was overwhelmingly preferred by the voters. Now, what that says about you, sunshine, you work out yourself. But it is a fact he was a failure. And of course, it is hard for his colleagues and it is hard for Territorians to forget just how poor a minister he was. We could have heard about the new plans the member for Drysdale has for health. Huh? Nothing.
We have not heard much from the next wanna-be leader, the member for Daly. Now, the media says he is a would-be if he could-be, but I am not sure. The member for Daly has gone to sleep, I think. He certainly has not been up to a lot during the last six months. He is a shadow minister. Where was his input in the leader’s speech this evening?
Member for Araluen - perhaps a would-be if she could-be. I am not sure myself. Now, I am told the member for Araluen once shared a little bit of the Chifley vision, the light on the hill, whether she thought she was a true believer or not. I am actually quite keen to follow this up with the member for Araluen at some point because, if it certainly was true, well, somehow she finished on the wrong side. But now that she is elected I am told that she tells her associates that her plan is to reform the CLP from within. Well, I like the member for Araluen. She is quick, she has a great sense of humour, and I think sometimes she finds it difficult to stick to the script of those around her, particularly when the current Leader of the Opposition and his deputy seek to rewrite history and go into denial, which we have seen yet again this evening. As for her leadership aspirations, I don’t know. I certainly won’t be asking her about that - that is her business. But it does not seem to me that she has gone all that far out of her way to contribute to the Burke-led opposition. Now, I looked for her contribution to the Opposition Leader’s speech tonight - nothing.
The member for Goyder, when he put his press release out bagging politicians for going on holidays a few days after the Leader of the Opposition took off for the first of his series of interstate and overseas holidays, well, you would reckon he would have to fancy his chances because he was certainly putting himself in the gun to have a go. All we knew about him before he arrived was that he used to be up there defending Hell’s Angels in court in his previous occupation. He used to own the big disco down the road. Then more recently, we hear he is the CLP’s pick to replace the current leader. Still come for nothing. I mean, we heard nothing. We heard nothing of the member for Goyder inside that speech today. No ideas, no plans for the Territory.
The rest have let him down, too. An older hand, member for Port Darwin, now works absolutely flat out; the onerous responsibility of party Whip, not an easy role. I did it in opposition. This is the first time in the Territory’s history that the party Whip in opposition does not also carry shadow ministerial responsibilities. So, for 33 days of the year she has the task of marshalling herself and her eight colleagues, but appears to have no role and no responsibility in contributing to policy development or contribution to debate. She has offered no support to her leader but, like her colleagues, appears set to, and committed to, maintaining a low profile while the current leader is left to float.
The member for Blain has changed his stripes a bit. We heard about his aptitude for the guitar in his former role as school principal but, really, most of us would not have been all that aware that he was in parliament for the last three years. It is interesting, I think, for those of us who were here to compare his presence and his contribution to that of the outstanding contribution by the member for Wanguri over the same time frame because the by-elections were held at that same time. The member for Blain, of course, was happy to ride on the coat tails of one Barry Coulter, and the Mayor of Palmerston. But since about six months ago, I think we have seen much more of a burst of activity, but all centered around keeping his own seat in Palmerston because he realises, along with the rest, that the Burke Backyard era is coming to a close, and he will have to earn the seat by himself. There will be no Barry Coulter and the likes of Burke Backyard to get him over the line in three or three-and-a-half years time.
The Leader of the Opposition stands condemned for his neglect and failure, but so also do his colleagues because they have let him down and in letting him down, have let the Territory down. I think it is a cruelty in Country Liberal Party politics that the very people who undermine their leader are the ones who will of course be lining up to cash in on his failings when the leadership challenge has materialised, as materialise they certainly will.
Alongside the betrayers in the parliament here, of course, is the Country Liberal Party machine. And you have to ask, how can a man, how can a woman, how can anyone, run an opposition successfully when you have senior party officials running around blaming him entirely for last year’s election result? The Country Liberal Party really does have to get behind their leader, whoever it is, in that fight to provide an effective opposition.
Mr Dunham: And you’re a united pack?
Mr STIRLING: He can scoff, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am trying to be helpful here. I am trying to be a bit helpful. What I would say to those party officials who are so keen to undermine the Leader of the Opposition, well, it is very easy for them to knock, but at least he is having a go. At least he is having a go. I think the worst offenders of all in a debate such as this, and they are not too up-front about it – they are always whispering behind closed doors - are the ones who never sought public office in the first place, never put themselves on the line, or they left public office a long time ago but now want to rewrite history for themselves and blame everything on the Opposition Leader and his staff. And it is true. The Opposition Leader’s staff must carry some responsibility for poorly advising their boss when overseeing the election result. It is also true they were behind the failure of the statehood referendum. But the criticism of the staff is unfair because it was up to the party and it is up to parliamentarians to step in when those failures loomed. So bagging the staff is really tantamount to bagging the leader who picked them. What I would say to those betrayers and underminers is, leave the staff alone.
The time for leaking and the time for undermining is over, and the time for getting behind your leader really has arrived. If you do not like him and you want a new leader, chuck him out, but stop undermining him and stop putting him out there on a slow burn. It is incumbent I think on each member of the Country Liberal Party to show …
Members interjecting
Mr STIRLING: Well, he laughs, but it is up to him. It is incumbent on the member for Drysdale to show that he could do better. Well, I ain’t seen it. I am not seeing it. As today’s speech manifests, the current Opposition Leader is history, but it is up to people like the member for Drysdale. If he wants to have a go, it is up to him to show the public that he is in a position able to take over from him. It really is up to individuals like the member for Drysdale if he is serious in his intent, or any of the members opposite who want to put their hands up, they have to put their cards on the table.
Territorians deserve to see from these members and from the CLP a little bit of a vision about what the CLP is going to do in opposition. Use your press releases. We saw the member for Goyder out there, not very effectively I would have thought today, out on radio - but use your press releases, use your branch meetings, use your speeches in this place to outline a little bit of what you are about, like we did.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Yes, well, the member for Goyder says I have the looks, have the brains, just need the issue - I don’t think it is transfer of prisoners to Alice Springs.
There is a general business day tomorrow. That is an opportunity really for the would-bes if they could-bes to outline what they would do as opposition leader if they got the chance. What would the member for Drysdale do so differently? Why does he want to be leader, if he does want to be leader? What is his view on privatising hospitals, for example? He was a bit keen on it a few years ago. Does he agree the opposition office should be immune from the budget belt-tightening that is occurring? Would he keep all the old hands on in the Leader of the Opposition’s office? Would he promote new ideas and approaches? What would change if he got the nod?
Has the member for Daly come to grips with his inability to make decisions? Is he prepared to be more assertive and lead, or is the task beyond him? And of course, there are the new kids on the block as well. Are they prepared to wear the inheritance of the has-been, or do they want to set out on new paths? Did they agree with the deceitful way in which the budgets were prepared over the past few years by their leaders? Did they endorse the spend, spend, spend theory of government finances?
To continue to undermine without offering the alternative in the way that we have seen is, in its most serious sense, letting the Territory down. It means we have a crippled Opposition Leader and we will see Territorians left with only one credible approach. We will continue to see an opposition without direction and every suggestion that in three-and-a-half years time, the Country Liberal Party will offer Territorians nothing new.
Today’s reply to the Chief Minister’s statement was an indictment on the Leader of the Opposition, but it reflects on all the opposition and I think today they must draw a line in the sand. If you want to keep him as leader, start contributing. Stop putting out press releases which humiliate him, which the member for Goyder did. Stop backgrounding the media on the leadership issue which three or four of you did the other day when you were ringing the ABC. Stop ringing up government advisors and members and telling tales on each other. And start being seen with your leader in public. In here would be a start. If you want to go that way, you want to get behind him, you have to start being seen with him, you have to start suggesting questions for Question Time. Early in the life of this government we had one question asked eight times. Today, we had one question asked five times, and based upon a lie at that. Start coming up with some constructive ideas, start researching, start getting your facts straight, and for God’s sake, check the little memo or the document before you bring it in. But if you want to take his job you have to put your hand up and put your cards on the table.
The ministerial statement delivered today by the Chief Minister and the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition did provide a stark contrast and it does confirm, as I said, what the voters of the Northern Territory realised six months ago. It is clear to anyone listening to this debate today that the Chief Minister does have the vision and energy to take the Territory forward. She spelt out an action plan, as I said, a plan of the immediate and the future, and Territorians should be well-pleased with their choice to make Clare Martin Chief Minister.
She has already shown her capacities to date, and her statement today makes it clear that over the next 12 months, we will continue to see responsible, active government under her leadership. I congratulate the Chief Minister, and I commend her statement to the House.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure if the previous speaker was in a quandary or on the horns of a dilemma, but certainly I had to look at the statement three or four times to find out if this was what he was speaking to. It was a wide-ranging diatribe of the type he used to use in opposition, and I still think that is essentially the problem with this statement - the government has not come to grips yet with the fact that they are government.
Now, if you listen - freshen your ears - at the rubbish peddled out by the previous speaker, paraded as constructive advice to us about how we might run our lives and how we might come to grips with such issues as leadership and research and policies and stuff like that - he was granny sucking eggs a bit. And one wonders whether he was speaking to the main points of the Chief Minister when she said: ‘Today I want to report to this parliament on the government’s plan for the coming year …’. The government’s plan for the coming year is to worry about our organisation and how we run our affairs. ‘… to achieve our vision of stronger Territory, with better opportunities for all citizens. Our overall aim is to build a united Territory …’, says the Chief Minister, as her deputy spends most of his time being divisive which is, of course, his trump suit.
I, in my working life, have seen many, many ministerial statements and I can understand how this one was constructed. Essentially, it has the normal ingredient; it has the black hole ingredient. As you go through you see black hole, black hole, black hole, black hole, black hole. And then you go to the we-care-social-agenda stuff which has a couple of issues to it. We-care-and-you-don’t is the main issue. You have no idea, you don’t care about the underprivileged, whereas we do and we have a monopoly on caring. And then it talks about gas and the railway. We’ll all be saved because the gas and railway will come along and make everything good again. Then it runs a couple of colour items like the Desert Knowledge issue and Darwin being the gateway which is proudly proclaimed as, and I quote, ‘our proposal’, meaning the current government’s proposal, ‘to make Darwin the gateway’.
I think researchers to statements such as this will find a strange sense of dj vu because many of these things in here have been discussed in this parliament for a long time. In fact, the genesis of pretty much all of them, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, can be very easily and quickly tracked to coming from the minds of those people on this side who were previously in government.
Lee Point has a long history. Issues about tackling crime, and the far flung communities, and the Desert Knowledge, the gateway, the Darwin railway, desert zones. Tropical medicine has been spoken of many times and it is certainly something that has come from this side of parliament. It is a sad state in a way because it is partly a yearning for how things used to be, and we feel a bit that way and the citizens of the Territory feel a bit that way, too. But the government, too, is yearning for the past. It looks for the innovation that came, the remarkable strides forward that came in this place over many years, and in their own funny little way it is a quiet accolade for us because all of this stuff here is our stuff. That is a good thing. I feel pretty good about it. But on the other side, I feel sad because it is not going to last them long. For some of these things, the horizon is only out a year, a couple of years, and they cannot really trade off, not only the good will that we put in place, not only the great legacy we left them, but they are going to have to come up with some ideas of their own.
I have lived in this place for longer than 26 years, the fabled 26 years, and I guess I count myself among - I don’t know, maybe there is half a dozen of us been here longer than 26 years. It is trotted out as this terrible thing that we have looked after this place for 26 years and how bad it is. Well, I can tell you, go back and have a look. Go to the NT News and pull out the NT News from 26 years ago. Have a look at places like Katherine, Tennant. They did not have a municipal council. There was no such council as Litchfield. Many of the Aboriginal organisations did not exist. They were run by government instrumentalities or missions. The Northern Territory University was a dream and there were people like myself who were fortunate enough to travel to other places away from here to attend university. But for many of my colleagues I went to school with, they did not contemplate obtaining Year 12 because it was not something that was available to them, much less going to a tertiary institution.
So when you want to run this case about 26 years, the first thing you should do is go back 26 years and have a look. When you do it, you will see that in the time, the 26 years that so offended - mostly offended because I think you had your noses rubbed in it a bit. I mean, we remember the debates about the NTU. We know you did not support it. We know you did not support self-government. The Chief Minister herself did not vote for statehood. This is an indictment on this person who sat in this parliament and debated the issues, had a unanimous report to it and did not vote for statehood.
If you really want to run the case that we have had a terrible 26 years, I would suggest that you are not looking to re-brand some of these issues, you are looking to over-brand some of these issues. I am sure with your bovine knowledge, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would understand what I am talking about. This is a matter of cattle duffing, in a policy sense. What you have is these people over here carefully mustering the boundary, finding they have a yard full of policies with our brand on it and changing them. Now, that is pretty much what this ministerial statement is all about. It is about pinching ideas, pinching policies, scapegoating, pretending you have a vision. The vision thing is running about as dry as the black hole thing because all these buzz words about ‘we are going to do things whole-of-government, we are going to have a vision, we care about everything, everybody, everything will get good; it used to be bad but now they’ve gone and they’re the enemy, so everything will be good’. That sort of rhetoric really calls on us to look to data that describes how well you are going.
It is no good just saying: ‘We went to Brendan Nelson and said: “No worries. We are going to have an improvement in indigenous education”.’. We want to see it. We want to see if that means attendance at school. We want to see if that means more Year 12 graduates. We want to see how that goes with benchmarking literacy, numeracy and oracy. We want to see how that goes with issues in remote communities where there are very poor job prospects. For the member for Nhulunbuy parading in here and talking about the number of people of European racial origin working in Aboriginal councils is a bit cute because there are many people in this House, and in other places, who are not of Aboriginal descent who have worked with, and for and on behalf of, Aboriginal people. I can understand that jobs that are locally available should be available to Aboriginal people and I, too, am dismayed that in many communities where there are jobs available for people, they are not taken up.
The point I would make is that if he is saying that the current self-management structures that are in place are deficient in this sense and that councils somehow do not have the potency to decide who their workforce is, and that he is going to change, for instance, the Local Government Act, so that community government councils have some of these quotas built into them, he can say it, have the guts; have the balls like Brendan Nelson because I think they are things he could put on the record. He could say Yirrkala Community Government Council - sorry, the Yirrkala Association because it is not a community government council yet - has a very poor policy of Aboriginalisation of its workforce. It offends him as a member of the government, and he is going to intervene because that is what governments do. I mean, our job is to intervene in peoples lives. That is what we do.
We make laws and we say: ‘You can’t drive faster than that, and unless you obtain this age you can’t engage in those behaviours, and if you do certain things we find offensive, we lock you in a place that you can’t get out of’. That is what we do as parliaments. What he has to do with statements like this is get beyond the rhetoric. He has to say: ‘As a government, we are going to address the Yirrkala problem. We are going to do it. We are going to intervene and we are going to tell that self-managing council that they are doing the wrong thing. They do not have a clue. They are doing exactly the wrong thing’, and it offends Syd’s sensibilities to the extent that he is going to use this place to intervene in their lives. So, the rhetoric now falls due to him because he has to do it. He has the Treasury resources and he has the legislative capacity to intervene.
If he believes that we can we can get kids to school by some magic measure, if we can have $320 000 parading as a Youth Night Patrol and make some sort of an intervention there, he has to tell us what his benchmarks are because he knows, and I know, and everybody else knows, that somehow you have to measure it. The old days when you said: ‘We have a problem with kids on the street. Solution: $320 000 - problem fixed’, don’t work like that. The fact that you have spent the money is not the point. You have to be able to demonstrate that you spent the money doing something that worked. That is the challenge for the government. That is the challenge for the Chief Minister who I note is absent, Madam Speaker, which seems to be a cause of some concern for one of the previous speakers.
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. He is referring to the absence of members.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you know you should not refer to members who are – would you withdraw that remark?
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, that is true, Madam Speaker, and I do withdraw it. I withdraw it because I think …
Madam SPEAKER: No, that is it. Unreservedly.
Mr DUNHAM: It is unreservedly withdrawn. I think it is something that should be in standing orders, that you should not be reflecting on whether people are in the House or not, and I am disappointed that the Deputy Chief Minister took so much of his speech in making that reflection. But then, that goes to his delinquent style, I suppose you could call it, where he chooses to do things, notwithstanding that they might not be entirely in accord.
His comment about all our problems, and the Alkatiri/Clare relationship and the Syd/Brendan Nelson relationship, and all that stuff, augers well for the future. That is true, that is true. It is really important that leaders make sure they use their capacities to advance the benefit of this place. To make sure that those relationships they make are such that they forge powerful bonds that, in the end, the beneficiaries are the people who pay the taxes here in the Territory.
That is something we are very proud of, because we were the first government to have an Asian Relations portfolio. We had a Cabinet with an Asian born member in it. We had very strong links to the nations to our north. We had the capacity for our Chief Minister to go to the Vice-President of the United States of America about the matters related to gas off our coasts. We also forged a meeting between the various players, Shell, Woodside and Phillips, with the Prime Minister of Australia. So, to run this story that Alkatiri thinks you are a good mate and that just broke the back of all the relationships, I think, of all the impediments to the problem is a bit trite. And while it is true because of Mr Galbraith’s intervention up there and his proximity to Dr Alkatiri in terms of advice, there were certainly some problems with that. But if the government would have us believe that they would have gone along the lines of Mr Galbraith’s advice, that is something that I would like to hear. Because certainly his advice, I am sure, would not be acceptable to any Territorian and it is an assault on our sovereignty and various other things, I am sure we would stand by.
Now, if Dr Alkatiri found that offensive that we were disappointed with the advice he was getting from Mr Galbraith, so be it. Because I for one do not resile from that position and if it is a position that is adopted by those opposite, let them say it. Because, as I am trying to say here, Madam Speaker, it is a matter of getting past it.
A member interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: I missed the interjection. I did believe that the member for Sanderson was a empty headed, boorish, obnoxious person. But I was wrong and I am happy to say I was wrong. Because I thought he was totally devoid of talent, but I went to the celebration commemorating the Bombing of Darwin. I saw him acting as a boorish, obnoxious, drunken, racist person totally devoid of talent and I thought, ‘Well, there we go, he does have a problem’.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr DUNHAM: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Sanderson!
Mr DUNHAM: I was trying to be polite, Madam Speaker. I was trying to say he did a damn fine job acting as a boorish, drunken, racist thug in that particular play. I am hopeful that it was acting because he did a damn fine job – it is the sort of thing that got accolades
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I really don’t see the relevance of these comments in terms of the ministerial statement.
Mr DUNHAM: I would like to speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I think you should get back to the topic you were talking about before and refrain from making any further personal remarks about the member for Sanderson. Could we get back on to the debate.
Mr DUNHAM: The previous speaker, Madam Speaker, while you were absent from the House ran through every one of us on this side and he talked …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I was not present at the time. What is your point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: I was going to put a point of order on whether or not someone was in the Chamber or not.
Madam SPEAKER: Look, you are being a little bit frivolous.
Mr DUNHAM: I suppose I am seeking clarification, Madam Speaker, because obviously in this same debate there are going to be two attitudes about whether speakers can reflect on individual members in a helpful way, much the same way as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did about, for instance, treachery within the party and white-anting and setting people up and all of those things he talked about, which we listened to because we figured it afforded us the same opportunity to talk about them. Now, if by changing the Chair, Madam Speaker, that has changed also, I would hold by your ruling.
Madam SPEAKER: All I am asking you to do is to address your remarks to the statement in a dignified parliamentary manner. I am sure you can do that.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, that will be a vast change from the last speaker, Madam Speaker, and in hindsight I wish you had been in the Chair a bit earlier. My comments are coming to an end in any event because this statement is very shallow and, as I said, there is a sense of dj vu about it all.
It talks about things that were near and dear to us, things that we were involved in the construction of; the policies that we put in place, sometimes from ground zero. It’s a beautiful page, page 9. The $11m redevelopment of Alice Springs Convention Centre, that is one of ours. The Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment, yes, I reckon that might have been ours. East Arm Port development, Royal Darwin Hospital development, Tanami road, Hugh River Bridge, which we can’t claim, and neither can they because it is Commonwealth money. But if you look at this stuff in here, if the notion is to present this to people and say: ‘Look, there has been a lot of criticism about us doing nothing, sitting here and the wheels are spinning’, this is not going to serve the task, because I am sure readers of this debate will also hear railway, gas, all those wonderful things that are out there, the desert knowledge, the tropical medicine, and many of them will realise that this pre-dates this government. I am sure they will give credit where credit is due.
I am also happy to put on the record any day what has happened in this place over the last 26 years - any day - and I am happy to have the debate for those, the majority of whom former members of the government who were not here at that time, so that I can enlighten them about this particular piece of party rhetoric that they have taken to an art form where they try to make Territorians ashamed of what has happened over here over the last 26 years. It has been a monumental success. And for us to have been in government during that time is something that I take pride in. I am quite happy for them to trumpet from the rooftops that the last 26 years saw CLP rule, even though it is not true. And I have pointed that out to them too, because certainly in the case of health, it was after self-government which was 1978, so that is it less than 24 years. Nonetheless, if they want to say that the happenings in this place are marked by the influence of the CLP, I am happy to be a part of that because I think that influence was a very benevolent one and, certainly on behalf of myself as an individual, my family and others, I have benefited remarkably from the fact that we had far sighted people in the government from the CLP. And that is primarily why I joined the party.
I thank you for your indulgence, Madam Speaker. I find that I cannot commend the Chief Minister’s statement because I think it falls far short of her ambitions that she set out on page one.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I was not going to participate in the debate on this statement tonight, but I have to follow some of the comments from the member for Drysdale in terms of his reply to the Chief Minister’s statement. I really find it difficult to know where to start in terms of some of the comments that he was making. He talked about the inherited legacy that we as a new government have of 26 years of CLP rule. Now let’s actually honestly look at that legacy, and he pointed to the fact that if you looked at Katherine and Tennant Creek and Darwin and Alice Springs 26 years ago, what wonderful changes you have seen. All absolutely because of the great guiding hands and wisdom of CLP governments in the distant past. Now, let’s look at this legacy. Let’s look at this legacy honestly, and first of all let’s look at the legacy of the fiscal position of the Northern Territory.
The fiscal position of the Northern Territory, which we as government have inherited and we have a responsibility to manage, and also in terms of a responsibility to deliver to the community, let’s talk about this $1.3bn worth of debt that we have inherited from the former CLP government. $1.3bn worth of debt, the highest per capita debt by a factor of five of any other state across Australia, and in spite of the fact that of this money, of this $1.3bn debt, 80% of all funding that all previous Northern Territory CLP governments have had, has come from Canberra. 80 in every dollar that CLP governments have had to spend to create this wonderful lifestyle that they like to take credit for, and have taken credit for for 26 years, was funded from Canberra.
There was only a requirement on the political pain side of the equation to raise 20% of revenue. In terms of the comments that ‘we created this wonderful lifestyle, it is the legacy of the CLP. This is the legacy’ - no reference to the fact that Commonwealth governments have funded this. No recognition that Commonwealth governments, both Labor and conservative, over those 26 years, continued to fund. Any clown can spend money and this is what you guys did so profligately over 26 years. Any idiot can spend money - making money is the hard part. What we have inherited is $1.3bn worth of debt. A budget that was so totally dishonest and has been absolutely discredited, that showed a bottom line of $14m deficit for this financial year, which has in turn turned out to be somewhere in the region of $124m - not to fund our policy commitments but to cover the operational shortfalls that you so falsely presented in those budget papers and really will be the legacy of your last term of government.
Let’s look at the other wonderful legacy of that 26 years of CLP government - the absolute worst health outcomes in the nation by far. Recent reports have proven my colleague, the member for Johnston, a well-respected person in the medical community, term ‘deadly Territory’. So, the legacy that you have left us with is the absolute worst health outcomes in Australia for indigenous people, and the outcomes for non-indigenous people are nothing to be crowed about either.
Let’s look at those education outcomes. The absolute appalling - not travesty, I am trying to search for the word - the appalling neglect of the previous administration by failing to sign up to those outcomes, to take the $12m to put in indigenous education. Without doubt again, the worst education outcomes in Australia. Not only amongst our indigenous population, but also the non-indigenous populations. Without an education to equip people with the skills to take advantage of the new economies that are emerging, the Territory is going to struggle. So, when the member for Drysdale talks about this wonderful legacy, and members opposite talk so disparagingly of the Labor government’s social agenda, well, heaven help that this government has a social agenda that looks to improving educational outcomes for Territorians and improving health outcomes for Territorians. Heaven help that we have such an appalling agenda in government that we actually want to improve those two very vital benchmarks that really will underpin the success and lifestyle of the Territory for many, many years to come. We are absolutely committed to that, and we do not shirk from that.
We saw in terms of Question Time here today, we now know - and again the legacy of 26 years of CLP government - the legacy of the divide and rule, conquer-at-all-costs mentality of the former CLP. Credit to the Leader of the Opposition in the August election where he did not run a race-based campaign. Race was not an issue and I give him credit for that. But here we have the CLP Central Council, we have a lock up at Lake Bennett and they are confronted for the first time with an election loss, and an analysis that all political parties go through post an election, win or lose, in terms of ‘Where do we go from here?’
Political commentators quite rightly state that you win and lose government in the Northern Territory in the northern suburbs. The CLP quite obviously lost government in the northern suburbs. So what is the strategy out of the brains trust at Lake Bennett over the weekend? ‘We have to go back to the successful formula of divide and rule’. This is the legacy of the CLP of 26 years, to divide Territorians. And we have seen the first Question Time today, the first Question Time since November - and a hell of a lot has happened since Lake Bennett - and heaven forbid, the Yellow Pages Business Survey. Now, we were in opposition for a long time, we know a good issue when it comes up. ‘No, we are not going to talk about that. What we are going to talk about is let’s throw a hand grenade, based on nothing but rumour and innuendo and some document floating around the Prison Officers Association …
Mr Ah Kit: Unsubstantiated.
Mr HENDERSON: Unsubstantiated. ‘Let’s throw this hand grenade of a black/white issue. Let’s accuse the new government, the previous Correctional Services Minister, let’s accuse them of blatantly favouring Aboriginal people over whites and Asians’. These were the lines - very carefully crafted lines to take the CLP back to its perceived heartland and to win back the northern suburbs. ‘Let’s not ask a single question on the biggest single issue that is being debated in the Northern Territory at the moment’ - which is the state of the economy. I stand here and accept that, we are having a really tough time. ‘But let’s not ask a single question on that because we know that in terms of winning back the northern suburbs we have to go back to basics, and let’s use this divide and rule’.
So heaven help the opposition coming in here tomorrow crying crocodile tears on the economy, which they will. They will come in here tomorrow, I bet the first questions will be on the Yellow Pages survey. Well, you missed your opportunity today. You cannot come in here tomorrow with crocodile tears about the economy when the old race card, which is the legacy of 26 years of CLP government, was played so blatantly in here today. We will wait and see how the strategy pans out for the rest of the sittings.
We are looking at the economic issues, we are looking at the issues in oil and gas. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Drysdale were talking about what we did to facilitate negotiations between Timor and Phillips. We are not going to go line by line through that, we don’t have to. The fact is that between Phillips and Timor and the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth government - but particularly the Northern Territory government - there is now an agreement between Phillips and East Timor. That was, in large part, assisted by the Northern Territory government working with all parties, not on the front pages of the NT News, not on the TV screens on Channel 8 at night, but being a good government working behind the scenes.
If we look at the issue of business confidence for a moment, and the issues surrounding this, the absolute irresponsible media hype created by the Leader of the Opposition in the last 12 months, was the absolute certainty that we were going to get gas onshore - the absolute certainty that we had signed up Methanex and an LNG plant for Phillips - the absolute certainty that all of these things were going to happen. Totally irresponsible, because not a single contract was signed anywhere. Difficulties were being raised with the government all the time but no, ‘It suited our political strategy to get out there. Let’s hype this up, let’s commit Territorians and business people in the Territory to work up business plans based on the reality, the certainty that this is going to occur’. And then, when Phillips made that announcement in August in terms of an indefinite deferral of the pipeline - and certainly with many business people I have spoken to - confidence just went through the floor, because they had been sold the certainty that this was going to happen outside of all of the information that was coming to government at the time that this was high-risk strategy, there were many complex issues that still needed to be resolved, and there was absolutely no certainty.
There was a lot of goodwill, I will grant that, and a lot of people working together, but there was no certainty. But that never came out in terms of the media statements of the former Chief Minister and now Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Dunham: You have it in your budget papers. It is in your budget papers.
Mr HENDERSON: And I will pick up - and it will be interesting to get the Hansard from the member for Drysdale who said that the CLP hand was still on the tiller, guiding the great ship of state, and somehow the Opposition Leader had brokered this meeting today between the Prime Minister and the CEOs of Phillips, Shell and Woodside Petroleum. Well, that is an absolute blatant falsehood, an absolute total lie and verballing of the Prime Minister’s office. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Leader of the Opposition. This meeting has been arranged for quite some time now …
Mr Dunham: When he was Chief Minister, you goose.
Mr HENDERSON: No, this meeting was not brokered six months ago when he was Chief Minister. You really should not intrude in areas of debate that you know nothing about. This meeting has come about - and I am not going to talk about it here - but it had absolutely nothing to do with the Opposition Leader in terms of his meeting with Macfarlane and Downer - and it will be interesting to see the reasons for the travel down there. I think it coincided with the first sitting day of the new federal parliament, with Howard, with all of his absolute distortions and the Prime Minister coming out now winning the federal election on absolute falsehoods. He did not have too many friends left to invite to his opening party …
Mr DUNHAM: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The reflections on people in other Houses also offends the standing orders of this House.
Madam SPEAKER: I am not quite sure whether the speaker actually offended the Prime Minister.
Mr DUNHAM: I think distortion might be one?
Mr Reed: In relation to referring to the Prime Minister as Howard, rather than the Prime Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Did he? Is that what you are referring to? Well yes, the minister does know that you should not refer to people that way.
Mr HENDERSON: I stand pulled up, Madam Speaker, and I did correct myself and referred to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister. But he did not have too many friends left in terms of conservative leaders around Australia to come to his celebratory party. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition was invited and, whilst he was down there, he stitched up a couple of meetings without even bothering to get a briefing from my department, which he worked with for so many years and knows how dedicated those officers are, what a wealth of information they have in regard to these very complex negotiations and actually seeking a briefing to avail himself of the up-to-date information before going into those meetings with Macfarlane and Downer. So, to come in here and say that the Leader of the Opposition is somehow still steering this, beggars belief.
In terms of the issue of whether we are going to get gas to shore out of Sunrise, well this government has not given up. Yes, the going is tough and we have not given up. We are still advancing the national interest argument and we have more bullets to fire in that, but I do note, that the Leader of the Opposition in previous debate in this House, back in the last sittings, has basically given up and would have rolled over. Well, we are going to continue to fight in the interests of this community and in the interest of Australia.
The Leader of the Opposition was talking about the railway and how we are claiming credit for this. The Chief Minister has consistently said that this was not a CLP project, it was a Territory project and from day one the railway, from day one had totally unqualified support from us in opposition. It was support that was never acknowledged, and the Leader of the Opposition stands here and says that we had run away, that we were not going to approve any additional money, and there was no more money to be put on the table. Well again, an absolute blatant falsehood. I remember very clearly - very clearly - the bill that was brought into this House late one night, probably back in June/July last year and it was a ‘whatever it takes’ bill. It was a blank cheque bill which basically gave the government of the day, the Opposition Leader, the then Chief Minister, the capacity via that legislation to kick in whatever money was required to get the railway over the line, and we signed up to it. I remember the then Leader of the Opposition coming up over here and saying to the then Chief Minister of the day: ‘We are going to take you on your word on this, that if you do have to use this trigger, then you have to bring it back into the parliament’. But it was an unprecedented piece of legislation in terms of the ‘whatever it takes’ bill. We then had after that, and continue today in this House, this furphy that we, in opposition, did not support any additional money for the railway. History will certainly write that.
I challenge the Leader of the Opposition and any member of this House, to provide evidence to this parliament, on any bill that went through this House, in relation to the railway over all of those years, that we in opposition did not support it and did not support fulsomely. There is not one. So again, this wonderful legacy, this picture that the CLP try to present that everything that is good in the Territory is due to the CLP and their great stewardship of the ship of state for 26 years, and everything that is bad, including the current fiscal position of government, the health outcomes for Territorians, the education outcomes for Territorians, well that had nothing to do with them, that was all somebody else’s fault. Well, that absolutely does not wash. We will be judged at the end of four years, in terms of our progress in regard to the election commitments we made, the Chief Minister’s statement here tonight, the state of the budget, the state of the economy, and we will stand and we will be judged in four years time, and I look forward to that particular contest.
For members opposite to have the gall to come in here and, basically, make the assertions that they left the good ship, the Northern Territory, in a wonderful position after 26 years absolutely beggars belief. It attempts to rewrite history that does not stand up and members of this House have absolute total support in terms of the vision that the Chief Minister has put up this afternoon in this statement and we will be judged against that in four years time.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I was rather surprised by the revelation, and by his own admission, at the commencement of his speech that the Minister for Business, Industry, and Resource Development was not going to speak in this debate, but he had been attracted to do so, of course, by the comments from members on this side of the House. It is surprising, because for the Chief Minister to make a major statement in what she claims is the way ahead for the Territory and the economy, in particular, and to not have that supported by contributions by not only the lead ministers but all ministers, is, I dare say, unprecedented in this House. It is appropriate on such occasions for other ministers to inform the House, and in turn Territorians, as to the scope of overall government activity in relation to ‘the way ahead’. That is underlined by comments reported, or attributed to the Chief Minister in today’s paper, and I quote from that:
And then, of course today, we have the lead statement in relation to that from the Chief Minister. She goes on to say:
That is an astounding statement from a Chief Minister and Treasurer. She does not expect the unemployment rate to fall because of the actions of her government and the encouragement that that is going to give to the private sector, but she hopes, in her deepest wishes and dreams, that cyclical events, that is, her ‘Let’s keep away from it in terms of the responsibility of government. Let’s keep away from it because we don’t know what to do, but hopefully through some magical occurrence something out there will make the unemployment rate drop’. That coming on top of revelations today from the Yellow Pages that business confidence in the Northern Territory government is at an all time low, and has plunged from 41% last August down to 5% in November last year and now negative 12%. That is an alarming fact and it will have the alarm bells ringing right across the business sector of the Northern Territory. That lack of confidence in the government is going to be further exacerbated by the fact that the hope that the business community saw in today’s NT News article on page 6, about the Chief Minister going to show the way ahead for the next year, has been dashed.
Territorians are going to be very disappointed tomorrow when they find that the Chief Minister has again said that all the things that are going to happen are, in fact, already happening. The alarming part of that is, is that once those projects come to an end there is nothing else in the pipeline. We have heard nothing from the Chief Minister today to tell us what is going to happen after the convention centre is built in Alice Springs. Madam Speaker, you would have been interested to hear today in the Chief Minister’s statement, I dare say, that once the construction of the convention centre is finished in Alice Springs, what activity is going to be generated by this government to keep the construction industry in an active position in Alice Springs. You have heard nothing today in relation to that.
The Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment, similarly a CLP initiative. When it comes to an end what is going to keep the construction industry on the move in Alice Springs? In terms of medical services when are the boards going to be taken off the windows of the private hospital in Alice Springs so that the people of Alice Springs might have a private hospital service, one that was promised by the CLP government? The facility was put in place, and the Labor government put boards over the windows.
What is going to happen with the East Arm port development? This government is applauding the fact that the East Arm Port development is proceeding. Of course it was a tender that was called, I think, by this government, and the Labor government has deferred for 12 months further works on the port.
The Royal Darwin Hospital development on the way, the redevelopment there initiated by the CLP government and nothing to take its place when it is finished in terms of initiatives from this Labor government. And they have the temerity to put up as an initiative a $6m project which is being funded by the Commonwealth to make it look good for the people of Alice Springs.
Underpinning all of that, of course, we have just heard the news from the minister for industries and business, something that we all know, that the Territory receives some 80% of its funding from the Commonwealth. It is a fact. What the minister did not go on to say, of course, was that all states receive rather large proportions of their funding from the Commonwealth. New South Wales, for example, as large as it is, with the taxing capacity and the fundraising capacity it has, receives something in the order of 40% of its funding from the Commonwealth. We should not be ashamed …
Mr Henderson: Not 80%.
Mr REED: I will pick up the interjection. The minister interjects: ‘Not 80%’. Well, I ask the minister what alternative he sees for Territorians to collect further funding from Territorians and less from the Commonwealth? What is wrong under the Federation of Australian States, of which now, financially, the territories are a part - what is wrong with a jurisdiction of low population, responsible for a large geographic area of 1.3m km receiving funding to ensure that- and this is the basis of the founding fathers of our Federation - the funding structure that was put in place, that horizontal fiscal equalisation ensures that we receive funding to be able to provide to the citizens of the Northern Territory services of a like nature to those that are provided elsewhere in Australia in the states, so that no Australian is overly disadvantaged in terms of the services they receive.
If the honourable minister is telling us that he wants to see a reduction in Commonwealth funding, that is something that will get the Territory concerned because they have already hit Territorians with over $100 a year in increased registration and associated costs for their vehicles and they do not buy this nonsense of black holes. Forget it. You are digging yourself into a black hole by continuing to push the story. People see through this mythical black hole of $107m. If they had a $107m problem, why are they raising $160m in the overall funding packages that they have put together? The reason - and Territorians can see through it - is so that they can pay for their election promises. They will have lean times for the first couple of years of this parliamentary term and then they will hope to recover public and voter confidence through a big spending program in the last couple of years. If you don’t think Territorians can see through that, you are more nave than I thought you were.
In terms of Commonwealth funding, there is no need for Territorians to be ashamed of the level of Commonwealth funding that we have received. We are entitled to receive it under the Commonwealth fiscal arrangements and in that regard, that the minister should stand up here and be critical of the fact that we do, simply demonstrates that he has no understanding at all as to what the fiscal arrangements in this country are and the disbursement of Commonwealth fundings to the states and territories and how it is done.
The other point that confirms that this a hollow statement, apart from the fact that it has nothing in it, is that there has been no contribution from other ministers; no other government members are contributing to the debate, or they have said they won’t. The Deputy Chief Minister in his contribution had so little to say in terms of what he could offer the business community, what he could offer in terms of his portfolios as regards improved services for the Territory, that he focussed purely on what he perceived to be the position of the opposition. If that is not a clear demonstration of a Deputy Chief Minister not knowing what is going on in his government and, moreover, bereft of ideas in relation to his own portfolio - and bear in mind he is the minister for education and training and employment, and we have unemployment levels now at over 8% and he did not contribute one iota to this debate in terms of how that serious set of circumstances is going to be addressed. Of course, as I have already said, in the paper today the Chief Minister is reported as saying she hopes cyclical events will fix the unemployment problem. Well, there is a Chief Minister and Treasurer in deep trouble. If this statement today has not – and it has not - addressed in any way the unemployment issues, then she is in deep trouble, and we will see that evolve over the coming months.
Let us look just at a couple of other issues in terms of how the several million dollars, and I forget the amount - $6m, was it? $4.7m, was it, that they put into capital works and repairs and maintenance? I was speaking to a contractor last week, getting around talking to business people – it is a pity the government isn’t doing it. His contract activity in terms of the work he has to do for the government is less than half of what he was doing this time last year. He is employing fewer than half of the people that he employed last year and there is no prospect of his amount of Northern Territory government work increasing. No signs on the horizon whatsoever.
Mr Henderson: $4.5m extra today.
Mr REED: Good. I am pleased you confirmed the figure. $4.5m. So let’s put that in context. This one contractor, and I can refer also to a number of others, this one contractor is down something in the order of $0.5m on the work he was doing for the Northern Territory government last year. So, the $4.5m that the honourable member refers to might assist nine like contractors. It might, if of course it was only directed to them, but, of course, it is going to be directed across the board, It might help nine contractors get back to somewhere in the order of the level of activity that they were undertaking this time last year under a CLP government. And so, in accordance with that, $4.5m is nothing to be proud of. I mean, they are talking about black holes, and the first thing they did was borrow $100m. I mean, where is the logic in this? Where is the logic in the issues they are pursuing in terms of trying to blame everyone else?
The great Australian vernacular in terms of people who live off others, people who take credit for the work that others have done, people who appear in the shadow of achievers and say: ‘I’m going to take credit for that’, is a bludger, and that is the way that Territorians are starting to look at this government. They are starting to look at this government as a mob of bludgers because they are taking credit for work and initiatives that others have done. It is not the Australian way. The black hole, the criticism, the ‘Oh we should do this and we should do that but we can’t because of what the CLP did’ - they have been now in government for over six months. It is past the time, and every Territorian you talk to will tell you it is past the time, for excuses. They now have three-and-a-half years of a parliamentary term left. They now have to start making decisions. They have to be innovative, they have to be proactive, and they have to start generating confidence across the community in terms of both the private sector activity and the services that are provided.
I want to touch now on a little of the services that are provided, because there are becoming fewer and fewer of them as every agency of the public service, becomes more demoralised. No longer do you hear public servants talking about doing that extra yard. Getting in a little bit early, staying a little bit late and making that extra commitment because it was appreciated and the effort was worth it and you could achieve something. Territory public servants are now talking about the fact that they have to write a note to get access to use a vehicle to fulfil the duties for which they are employed. And in cases where vehicles are shared between a number of field workers, the vehicle can be used for one field worker to undertake their duties for a few days or a week. Whilst the other two or three field workers who formerly had direct access to a car are waiting to get their note answered about when they will have access to a car to do some field work in remote areas, they are sitting in their offices doing nothing because their work is vehicle-based. And that has …
A member: What’s their names, where are they?
Mr REED: What’s their names, where are they? How could I crucify the public servants? Let us get at them. I tell you what, I can say this: I won’t be disclosing their positions or their names but I will be giving a copy of the honourable member’s comments to them, because that will only further exacerbate the situation and it will very, very clearly demonstrate to those demoralised public servants that the attitude of government members towards the public service is at a critical stage in terms of support and appreciation for the services that they provide, and with no realisation as to the impact that they are having. The interjection that we just heard from the member clearly demonstrates that, and it is a very sad reflection on this government. I can say now, that after this government passes, it is going to take many, many years to get the public service back to the standards that existed before this government rifled it, before this government reduced the public service by however many that ends up being, and it is going to be over a thousand. Even the unions recognise that. And before they are able to achieve the access to resources that they formerly had so that they can provide the services to Territorians which Territorians have been accustomed to.
Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that you have probably experienced similar circumstances in relation to public servants. It is not just a Top End situation. Public servants right across the Northern Territory have experienced the same cutbacks. They are no longer able to provide the services that they had. Look at an example - and there are many of them that just spring to mind - the property owner who applied for the chemical subsidy to spray weeds on a property. A very important issue. Weeds are a serious impost on the landscape and productivity of the land and this person was told by the department: ‘Sorry, we are out of funds. We might be able to give you some money next year, but those programs have all been put on hold’. Not even halfway - this was not even halfway through the financial year. So, the weed subsidy, assistance to pastoralists, every area and activity of government has been cut and the demoralisation of agency staff is so extensive it is going to take a decade to recover from it. And we have not heard anything today in this statement in relation to giving hope to the public sector or hope to the private sector, and that is going to further exacerbate the problem. I don’t think we have seen the bottom of the unpopularity of this government in terms of the Yellow Pages Survey.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to report on Health and Community Services today, because these services are among the most visible ways in which the government’s commitment to all Territorians is made plain. After six months in office it is also an opportune time to reflect on what we have encountered and what we intend to achieve over the next 12 months.
Territorians have entrusted government with their hopes and their aspirations for a better community; a community which has equality of opportunity and equality of participation, a community which provides equal opportunity for all Territorians to maximise their health, wellbeing and overall quality of life. We in the Labor government have a strong commitment to improve health infrastructure through our hospitals and health centres, to making the focus on prevention a reality, to supporting individuals and families, and providing better community services around the Territory. This House knows that our population, size and structure and the wide geographical dispersion of our people presents us with unique challenges. Compounding this is the severe budget difficulties that we inherited on coming into government.
It is worth reiterating the budget position, if only for the sake of members opposite, who seem to think that we are rolling in untold wealth and thus can fund every organisation who makes a claim for additional money. The November mini-budget identified an increase to the Health and Community Services budget allocation of $34.2m since the May 2001 budget, yet only $17.3m of this was for ongoing items. The rest was to meet one-off expenses, in the large part comprising known liabilities that had not been allocated for. Less than $1m is left to us this financial year from the $34.2m after paying off the debts of the previous government and meeting commitments. The challenge for us is to ensure that money is well targeted and prioritised so that Territorians are getting the best value for their Health and Community Services dollars.
This government believes strongly that good health and community care is essential for a well functioning Territory. That is why it has remained a strong priority for our government programs in spite of severe budget constraints. Our broad vision of what we want for the Territory must include:
Finding resources is one thing and not something this government takes lightly. But since assuming office it has also become clear to me that we have been left with a plethora of related problems to sort. The all important non-government sector, for instance, is facing significant challenges due to a series of historically unrealistic funding decisions and unwise one-off rescue packages, which have encouraged fragmentations, inefficiencies and dependencies where we need robustness and viability.
The challenge I face as Health and Community Services Minister, the challenge that keeps me occupied on a daily basis, is one of moving the entire portfolio out of crisis management and into long term planning, out of expediency and into strategic decision making. For each of the areas I will touch upon, the theme of effective stewardship of our available systems and resources is paramount. What I have to say today describes our first steps in creating the changes necessary to position the network of parties responsible for Health and Community Services to effectively make their best contribution. I stress these are first steps because we will be embarking on this change process in a considered and measured way. We are not rushing into quick fixes to create the superficial look of action, or to conjure miracles to appease the media. Instead, we are putting in the hard yards to build a more sustainable health and community services sector as a whole. This will take time, effort and, I stress again, responsible stewardship to achieve.
Turning now to our hospitals. We are after improvements in patient care; standardisation of best practice/policies/procedures; reduction of waste and duplication; a clear statement of the role and range of services for each hospital; and streamlined administration and reduction of overheads. The department’s hospital improvement project will be the vehicle for action. This takes in the entire public hospital network, and within that again, there are areas in urgent need of steady management and reform.
The problems we have encountered with the Alice Springs Hospital are nothing short of alarming. A critical nursing shortage, to all intents and purposes ignored by the previous government, has cascaded into a series of associated problems throughout the hospital, despite the best efforts of staff. Only very limited elective surgery has been available to central Australian residents for some time now, for without trained theatre nurses, there are longer waiting lists, less turnaround in bed stays, intensive care unit runs into difficulty, surgeons reconsider their options about working in such a short-handed environment, the emergency department strains at the pressure, and patients are forced to wait hours for beds.
Rather than investing in the overall strategic reforms and change management processes necessary to restore the Alice Springs Hospital to a more functional footing, the previous government focussed its efforts almost exclusively on capital redevelopment. I am not belittling the importance of these upgrades – we have upheld these commitments for good reasons. But I am signalling that the real work of attending to the actual operational environment and to bringing staff along, was neglected. This government has gone on the record about its commitment to rebuilding the community’s confidence in the public hospital system. In close consultation with staff and unions, we are giving Alice Springs Hospital the clear direction it needs to address its many challenges. We are putting in the planning and management processes to restore staff morale; we are attending to safety, quality and clinical risk issues; we are introducing operational efficiencies; and we are exploring opportunities for step-down, hostel and other forms of accommodation to facilitate discharge planning and post-discharge care. I will be reporting on this initiative to the House in greater detail this sittings, but for now, I am very pleased to report that our initiatives are already having effect. As I speak, elective surgery is back on the increase with the opening of two new theatres in the Alice Springs Hospital - a great turn around and a real testimony to the hard work of staff involved in the reform process.
The national shortage of nurses is a well-known problem. It goes beyond Alice Springs Hospital to be a problem throughout the Territory. One of our most important commitments as the new government will be to increase the number of hospital nurses by 75 over the next four years. To attract and maintain these hard-working and crucial members of our health teams in the Territory, a new marketing campaign and improved nurse career structures are already being developed.
We also need to attend to the very real problem of violence against nurses. This is a complex issue for which there is no quick fix. But again, with leadership, real improvements can be made. As frontline staff, community and even hospital nurses are often exposed to harrowing situations because they are committed to solving the underlying problems of the symptoms they deal with in a clinical setting. We ask them to do this. We ask them to see beyond the wound, the disease, to take in the whole person, their history, their wider social, political and cultural circumstances. This is what holistic primary health care is based on. But we cannot ask them to put themselves in physical danger in order to pursue their professional duties. Again, I will speak to the detail of our aggression response strategy this sittings, but for now, let me simply say this: violence against nurses is unacceptable, and we are working hard to immediately improve the occupational health and safety conditions of our frontline staff. Community-based staff cannot be expected to develop positive community relations in situations of crisis and stretch.
Nor can we afford to treat the serious issue of aggression in isolation from its links with other problems. Dependence, and a lack of self-determination, are conditions that encourage hopelessness, depression, violence and a range of health compromising behaviours that increase social dysfunction, illness and premature death. Some examples of these behaviours are abuse of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs, drunken driving, sexual risk taking, poor nutrition and physical inactivity. A whole-of-government response to family violence is being developed, and we are also assessing the extent of the under-resourcing of remote area primary health care in its entirety.
To improve regional access to aged care and other primary health care services, we are pursuing opportunities to establish multi-purpose services in both Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek in collaboration with the Commonwealth. The multi-purpose services model allows funds to be pooled from various sources into one flexible, integrated and streamlined service. This is an exciting development, which I look forward to reporting to the House as it progresses.
We are now also signatories to the Primary Health Care Access Program, which sees the Commonwealth accepting greater responsibility for funding the shortfall associated with the inaccessibility of the Medicare system to indigenous Territorians. This will result in the development of five zones in central Australia; and two in the Top End, in Borroloola and Darwin this year, with others to follow soon afterwards.
I give full credit to my predecessor for authorising the development of this important partnership approach to the promotion of community control and responsibility for health services management and delivery. Once again, however, I must flag the need to also provide a deliberate change management strategy as an equally serious government responsibility.
The experience at both the Tiwi and Katherine West Health Boards has been that they quickly move into being full service providers in their own right. This has the advantage or bringing services and clients into a more direct relationship with each other. Communities will employ their own health personnel, determine their own priorities and decide the best and most appropriate methods for delivering their own services. This has significant implications for how the Department of Health and Community Services can best support local control of health services. It is critical that the roll-out of zones is accompanied by enhanced professional support for service providers, and strong regional program management structures.
The regional service realignment project aims to deliver precisely this support, and to oversee the transition period as the zones begin to assume greater responsibility for service delivery. This tends to be unsung work, which is why I want to draw attention to it. When change processes are left to their own devices, the potential for unexpected financial liabilities, or alienation of personnel is exacerbated. I have seen too much of this in the health and community services sector to date, and I am determined that major projects will be carefully and diligently managed under this government. The issue at stake here can be simply put. It is about doing business in a smarter way, which is why - to take another example - I have asked for a complete appraisal of renal service requirements throughout the Territory.
The increasing mortality from renal disease does not adequately indicate the extent and rapid increase of this problem. With the provision of renal dialysis services to Aboriginal residents of remote communities from the mid-1980s, the number of clients on renal dialysis has risen dramatically, thus preventing most of the deaths that would otherwise have occurred over the past ten years. And as services become more accessible, diagnosis and treatment demands also escalate. In other words, the demand is going to grow before a drop-off is seen.
As a first step, this government’s commitment to providing a local haemodialysis service to Tennant Creek residents is being fulfilled, but a planned approach to renal service delivery is urgently required. The department is currently undertaking a mapping exercise to identify where areas of demand are likely to next emerge, and what the service implications of that demand might be. Ideally, we would like to continue the move to have renal services delivered close to where people live, to eliminate some of the more traumatic aspects of living with renal problems, that of isolation and loneliness. But for this to happen, we also need to assess the viability of different locations in terms of their infrastructure and amenity, level of social cohesion and community support structures. It takes planning, and good planning takes time, but the more relevant issue is the need to base our spending decisions on sound research.
An integral part of our approach to indigenous health, however, will be to fully commit to the whole-of-government, whole-of-community partnerships between government agencies and indigenous health services in ways that make collaboration more than just words. For example, the Collins report signalled the critical relationship between health and education. Despite the enthusiasm of many of our public servants to engage with such important reforms, the previous government allowed inter-agency cooperation to wither on the vine. I refuse to pay such lip service to indigenous health issues. In conjunction with my colleagues, the minister for education and the Minister for Community Development, I will be promoting constructive and creative approaches on an inter-agency basis, in tackling what is a growing crisis in indigenous health. These inter-agency cooperative arrangements will be committed to working with relevant indigenous service delivery organisations locally, regionally and across the Territory with bodies such as the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance. I have more to say about indigenous health which I believe is of such critical importance it deserves separate consideration in a statement to this House, something I will flag now for the next sittings.
I have stressed the responsibility of my approach to the Health and Community Services sector. My focus, and I do not apologise for how dry it might sound, is on identifying and implementing smarter, more innovative and more cost effective ways of doing things. Talking of doing things that make good sense, it astounds me that young people do not feature as a distinct policy focus in their own right, be it in relation to alcohol and other drugs, mental health, family and children’s services or even sexual health. This is a matter I feel very strongly about. These young people are our future and all the indicators point to the importance of this age group for directing adults towards healthful, productive lives.
Early childhood, infancy and even pre-birth maternal and child health have long been acknowledged as important precursors to adult health. Government’s commitment to improving the physical health of children and young adults is well documented. Some of our more important primary health care initiatives in this area are $2.2m for 2002-03 for a major increase in specialist child health personnel for remote areas; managing child health monitoring; better school health programs; and better nutrition. But older childhood and young adulthood are also critical periods in terms of development. It is becoming ever more obvious, that childhood and adolescence are not necessarily the low health risk periods they were once thought to be. It is also clear that the early years are critical periods for the adoption of behaviours with potential for significant long term harm and disability.
Although the importance of good physical health in children has been recognised for some time, there has not been sufficient attention given to the critical importance of their mental health and their social wellbeing. Mental health problems in childhood and adolescence if not resolved can have far reaching and enduring consequences for young people and their future, and for the community at large. Good mental health is fundamental for physical health, quality of life and economic productivity. Childhood and adolescent years offer the best opportunities for illness prevention and the building of resilient, long lasting mental health.
Members of this Assembly will be disturbed to know that 14% of children and young people in Australia, over half a million in total, have mental health problems that are comparable in severity with problems seen in children actually attending a mental health clinic. Even mild mental health problems are still likely to result in children and young people feeling very stressed, in poor physical health, performing below grade level, abusing alcohol and drugs, and thinking about and sadly often executing self harming actions.
Young people have more traditionally been viewed as healthy and robust, as generally immune to many of the problems that affect others. This seems to have been the major reason for the relative neglect of adolescent health in the past. It was also thought that health comprising behaviours became established and matured in the early 20s, certainly not in the teens and late childhood. This view, however, is inconsistent with the recent evidence which suggests that it is during childhood and the teens that many health compromising behaviours become established; behaviours such as smoking, poor diet, obesity, physical inactivity, high injury risk activity, drug and alcohol abuse.
Unfortunately, there are more immediate threats to children and young adults than the precursors to chronic diseases. Accidental injury, for example, one of the six national health priority areas, disproportionately affects young people. It is the leading cause of death in 12 to 24 year old Australians. The prevalence of injuries in young people is higher than for any other age group and although motor vehicle deaths have dropped substantially in the past two decades, death as a result of motor vehicle and transport accidents still remain overwhelmingly the most common cause of accidental death for young people.
Then there is the issue of youth suicide. The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows an increase in youth suicide for the Northern Territory from two deaths in 1994 to 12 deaths in 1999. Suicide is a complex and emotive issue that intersects a number of problems and concerns across society including mental health problems, alcohol and other drug misuse, family issues and social isolation. Research shows that by improving young peoples resiliency, self esteem, their problem solving and coping skills, and creating a sense of belonging to family, school and the community, we can reduce the incidence of youth suicide and other health compromising behaviours.
To repeat, Madam Speaker, there is strong epidemiological rationale for the ‘youth development’ approach my department is now adopting. Under this government, all future policy and program development for community capacity building will have to ensure that youth are an integral consideration.
A particular challenge faced by families and young people today, and no doubt well into the future, is the challenge of drug and alcohol abuse. This government has thus also begun the work of tackling the problems associated with substance abuse and illicit drug use in the Territory. Traditionally, most treatment and prevention efforts have focussed their attention on the users/abusers and their behaviour. Like the absent focus on youth, support for families has been limited and is generally provided at the specialist end of the treatment continuum. This has left a gap in services for family members, particularly at the primary health care level where contact with family members should be greatest. It is clear, that the Territory has a particular problem in this area. It is also clear that children and other family members suffer considerably as a result of the drinker or abuser’s behaviour and that they are at the higher risk of engaging in harmful drinking and drug abuse themselves.
The Family Coping Strategy, being developed by the department’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Program is well progressed and holds considerable promise in this area. The Ministerial Taskforce on Illicit Drugs is also now underway with regional consultative forums soon to take place to help devise a comprehensive strategy to battle the real problems caused by amphetamines, morphine and other illicit drugs. The support needs of the families of individuals using drugs are also a priority for the taskforce. Substance misuse is a matter that requires the dedicated attention of all members of parliament and the bipartisan approach of the select committee can only be applauded. But in the meantime for those indigenous communities reporting significant alcohol and cannabis related harm and endemic sniffing problems, we need to support local solutions now. I have already held discussions with the Commonwealth Minister for Health, the Hon Kay Patterson, to emphasise a need to collaborate on this issue as a matter of urgency.
After full consultation with industry and interested community members, we will look at passing through parliament tobacco legislation which addresses such issues as smoking in enclosed places, the sale of tobacco products to minors, and point of sale advertising, again ensuring safer environments and greater protection of our young people.
Among other issues of major importance, I should also like to briefly mention improved services for people with disabilities and their families and carers. Government is also following through on its commitment to people with disabilities, their families and carers by:
This is an important initiative and I look forward to a focussed discussion with the sector on how we can best support the different interested parties to scale up their collective ability to drive efficiencies. Together with government, they have difficult decisions to make about priorities and future survival strategies. The forums will help make available the knowledge, the information and the expertise necessary to help all players make the right decisions.
Government plays an important role in supporting and facilitating such problem solving processes. Additional resources are vital but if they are to be used effectively, we must catalyze new partnerships that harness the energy and creativity of the health and community services sector in the search for solutions.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement and that the hard work and dedication of people involved in getting the best of our health and community services sector is acknowledged.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the minister for the briefing that the member for Drysdale and myself availed ourselves of some weeks ago regarding issues in the Palmerston and rural areas. That is one of the issues I would like to speak on tonight, because it is one of the issues I see missing from the statement. What is going to happen for people in the rural area and Palmerston area? Being a member from the rural area, I think people in the rural area are missing out. Tomorrow, I present nearly 4000 signatures of rural people who want some form of 24-hour emergency facility to service their region. It is important to rural people and I would like to put forward a response that I hope the minister will take it on and that perhaps the government will reconsider its decision about the 24-hour clinic closure.
What I thought I would do is give a little history of what has happened in the last few years regarding the development of the Palmerston Health Precinct. The history of the Palmerston Health Precinct is a mixture of good intentions, departmental opposition, public misconception and sometimes just plain politics.
On 10 August 1999, in reply to a question, Mr Dunham said the following - and I am quoting from page 700, Questions, in the Hansard:
Further on he says:
On 21 February 2001, the then minister, Mr Dunham said, I quote from page 1297, Questions, of Hansard:
I also note that during a debate on the same day, 21 February, the member for Wanguri moved that the Northern Territory parliament condemn successive CLP governments for consistently failing to adequately fund Northern Territory hospitals, facilities and services. Then again on the same day during the debate, the then minister for Health, Mr Dunham said, I quote page 7285 and 7286 of Hansard:
Now, let’s talk about the Palmerston Health Precinct.
And he goes on to say:
The member for Wanguri said on the next day at page 7345 of Hansard:
And he goes on:
And again on Thursday, 5 July 2001, the minister for health, Mr Dunham, said in debate at page 8552 and 8553 of Hansard:
So, why have I quoted from Hansard, the NT News and the mini-budget? Because it shows that both political parties are saying that Palmerston should have a 24-hour GP service or a 24-hour medical service. I think most people would agree, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned earlier, that a GP service from 10 pm to 8 am is probably not necessary. But, as is shown from the number of people who have signed the petitions, they believe some type of emergency facility should be in place. I believe that is what the then opposition, now government, also wanted. This is obvious from the debates in parliament last year. Both sides were happy that it should occur. And it may be because of this apparent consensus that public expectations were high. I think everyone believed there would be a 24- hour GP service or a 24-hour medical service and perhaps that was the wrong impression to give people.
So, if the government and the opposition supported a 24-hour clinic, the question is: was the Health department opposed to it? The present minister for health says the decision to close it was based on evidence gathered by the Department of Health and Community Services. They found that urgent and semi-urgent use of the 10 pm to 8 am service was minimal and not the best use of limited taxpayers’ funds. But according to a report in the NT News on 19 November 2001, a review on how many patients used the 24-hour service will not be made public. The only figures made public are in the minister’s press statement which said:
Without the report, I am not able to verify what these figures mean. How many people turned up at the clinic who thought they had a serious problem, but after consultation were found not to be serious? It is important to realise that parents may believe there is something seriously wrong with their child, even if in fact if there is not, but how are they to know until they see someone? Were these particular cases quantified in the review? Does the cost quoted at $6000 per patient include those patients who believe they had a serious ailment? Are the figures made to look bad because they are, or because the department does not support the concept?
At a recent briefing with people from the department, various other reasons were given why it was not reasonable to have a 24-hour service at Palmerston. For example, if you went to Palmerston, you might have to wait in a queue and in that time you could have driven to RDH. No mention of what would have happened if there was a queue at RDH. Or that you would not expect this facility in a big city. You would have to drive at least 40 minutes to an emergency clinic in a big city.
Former health minister, Mr Dunham, said in parliament on 21 February 2001 in debate:
But it sounds to me that what the then minister believed was not necessarily what the department supported.
There are some other matters which concern me. First, there is the announcement by the government that based on the secret review, the 24-hour facility will be closed. Surely, if the government knew that the closure of this clinic would cause anger among the residents of the rural area and Palmerston, it should have first tried to involve the clinic in discussions about the closure before it decided to close it. Community consultation was sadly lacking.
It also concerns me that the government has made a statement that it will now spend an extra $34m on health this year, whilst at the same time saying we have a black hole and cannot afford to waste money on a 24-hour facility. It seems this is going to be seen as discrimination towards people in the rural and Palmerston areas. Surely people at Humpty Doo are entitled to a fair share of the health budget?
The last matter of concern is that the minister has asked the Department of Health and Community Services to conduct a feasibility study to examine the primary health care clinic service needs in the Palmerston area, and I hope the rural area is included. This statement was made on 10 December last year. I have to ask the minister, has this review started, and is it a public review and not a secret one like the first one?
Nearly 4000 people from the rural area have said they want some form of 24-hour medical service in Palmerston. I would therefore ask the government to establish a working party, including politicians from the rural area and Palmerston, local government, health specialists and yourself, to see if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this issue. The working party could look at the feasibility of having some form of emergency clinic, perhaps it has been stated before, with a nurse or with a paramedic, attached to the 24-hour ambulance centre.
As well, I would ask the government to seriously consider speeding up the construction of the proposed Humpty Doo police, fire and emergency service station proposed in the budget to be started in the next financial year. It should be commenced at the beginning of the financial year, not at the end. This would not only give an important boost to the rural economy but allow an ambulance to be stationed in the rural area. That would at least go some way to alleviating the concerns of rural residents.
Decision-makers forget that in the rural area people do have to travel further distances than in the more built-up areas. When mum lives on a block in outer Humpty Doo, and dad is working out on the mines or on an oil rig and one of the kids gets an asthma attack, or pop has a bit of a pain in the chest, it is nice to know there is help within a reasonable distance. For these people, I do not believe travelling to RDH at 3 am is reasonable. I would therefore ask the government to take on board some of these suggestions and see if we can find a sensible solution and outcome for the people of the rural and Palmerston areas.
The second issue that concerns me is regarding Aboriginal health. Minister, in your speech you spoke about the importance of Aboriginal health and about the importance of finding ways of treating people who have alcohol and drug-related problems. On this morning’s news, I heard that there was a possibility that the Five Mile Rehab Centre at Daly River, run by the Alcohol Education and Awareness Institute, is in danger of being closed down. I gather from what I have been told, that the board – that is the board of the Alcohol Education and Awareness Institute - was told by Health and Community Services that there would be no funding for hostels such as theirs after 30 June this year.
This centre has a 99% success rate in treating alcohol and marijuana dependency. They take the whole family, have a school for the children, and offer counselling for children and spouses, teach children how to cope with drunken parents. When someone first comes in, they take them hunting with a spear in the bush, concentrating on sweating the alcohol out of them, and on traditional values. People sleep on mattresses on the floor, not beds, by preference. They can cook wallabies traditionally - lots of options. Strong emphasis is on cultural appropriateness and traditions. People come there from all over Australia, not just the Northern Territory. It has been running there for 20 years and is only closed for six weeks a year. They take an average of 22 adults and 18 children at one time. It is run by the Catholic Dioceses with an annual government grant of $146 000 per annum.
Minister, I would ask you to urgently look at the funding for this Alcohol Education Awareness Institute. As I said in my sorry debate, one thing I hope I can do as a member of parliament is work towards some solutions for the alcohol and drug problems that especially affect many of our indigenous communities. I have known this community for a long time. In fact, I used to work on the same place this place was built just before it was established. I do hope that you can see that it is a very important institute. It does a lot of very important work. It has saved a lot of families; I have met people who have been through this course. I would ask you to take it on as a matter of urgency to see that this institute continues to get the funding it deserves.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to recognise the tremendous efforts our Minister for Health and Community Services is undertaking daily to turn around 26 years of neglect and pilfering from the health budget, specifically in Commonwealth grants, by successive CLP governments. I believe this neglect has bordered on the criminal, with absolute disregard to the basic health needs of indigenous Territorians.
Mr DUNHAM: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The word ‘pilfering’ – it is actually a crime, and in reference to Commonwealth grants, it was a matter that was looked at by the Public Accounts Committee, and the findings on that would dispute what the member is saying, and I suggest she refrain from it.
Madam SPEAKER: I have to admit I did not hear what she said. Perhaps the member for Karama could rephrase what she just said - keeping that in mind - because I cannot rule on it because I did not hear.
Ms LAWRIE: Twenty six years of neglect and shifting of money in and out of health budgets, specifically not total allocation of Commonwealth grants as provided, by successive CLP governments. I believe this neglect has bordered on the criminal, with an absolute disregard to basic health needs of indigenous Territorians. The CLP has left the Territory with a legacy of spiralling health costs - substance abuse, chronic diseases and illnesses based on the lack of fundamental healthy lifestyles have come home to roost, and now our acute health care system is struggling under a burden of too great a demand.
It is interesting to note that members opposite choose to attack our government for taking a strong stance in trying to right a fundamental imbalance. These are the same people who fought against the introduction of an Aboriginal interpreter service, which was crucial in the day-to-day operations of health care providers.
Mr Dunham: We implemented it.
Ms LAWRIE: You fought against it. It was a rally of the health care workers and lawyers and public outcry that forced the government’s hand.
I know that doctors, nurses and allied health professionals rallied in unprecedented numbers outside parliament in yet another attempt to get the CLP to listen. Unfortunately, the CLP way of doing things was to ignore the problem, harass and intimidate any honest member of our society for highlighting the problem, and then blame everyone else for the problem. Good government is about identifying where problems exist, implementing sound strategies borne through community and specialist consultations to address and overcome such problems.
The political party now, fortunately, in opposition, has left the legacy of successive governments that chose to live in denial about the disastrous impact their negligence was having on people’s lives. How does that affect my Karama constituents, you may ask? I have people living now permanently in Territory Housing homes, separated from their communities, living out a miserable existence on dialysis. When their community-based relatives come into town to visit, they hang out in local parks because there is nowhere for them to live. This disturbs the neighbours and we end up with a burgeoning social problem.
The difference with our government is that we are taking a multi-faceted approach to resolving these problems. Our health minister, our community development minister, education minister, and our Chief Minister, are all working together to improve community life and health. The fruits of our labours won’t truly be known for some years. These are not quick-fix solutions for political expediency - that is the way of the past, not the future.
I note that the Minister for Health and Community Services has also touched on the issue of youth suicide in her address, and I commend the minister for giving this important issue due attention. Just some weeks ago in my electorate, a young man hung himself. He had reached that terrible depth of despair and took his own life. My prayers go to his family, whom I know my colleague, the member for Arafura, has been working closely with in this time of grief and need.
As a teenager in Darwin, I lost friends to youth suicide. One friend could no longer cope with the life that was shattered by Cyclone Tracy, with the death of his mother, and permanent injury to every member of his family. He had struggled for years with his grief and sense of loss, feeling different to people because, from a tender stage in his childhood, his family had been traumatised. Another friend took his own life after living between cultures and struggling to cling to a positive self-esteem after being abandoned as a child and rejected by his white relatives. He had won the Northern Territory Apprenticeship of the Year award, he was talented and great. Yet he reached a point of despair, dislocation from society, and loneliness. We lost a terrific and talented Territorian.
It is my fervent hope that the youth development approach being implemented by our minister will give our youth a greater sense of belonging, of worth and, in their darkest hours, knowledge that there is help available. I know my friends and constituents who work in the mental health sector - both government and non-government - are concerned about the need for greater resources. I am confident that our minister, in her negotiations with the Commonwealth, can deliver partnerships that will improve funding and services in mental health. Such partnerships are now already underway in the disability sector. The Commonwealth and Territory unmet needs funding is being distributed by the Department of Health and Community Services, in a far more equitable manner than previously, following community consultation forums in Darwin and Alice Springs late last year. As the minister has previously informed this Assembly, I hosted those forums on her behalf. Following the completion of the forums, and reports from the independent facilitators, I stepped back from any active role in disability. I am pleased to say that the feedback I have received from this sector that I know well, is that they feel there has been a much fairer distribution of unmet needs funding in the latest allocations round, and that the funds have gone to the key areas of need and priority. Sling whatever you wish, opposition, the truth and fact of the matter is that we are working with the community, working with carers, working with people with a disability, to deliver the services and options that have been too long overdue.
Finally, a sector of our society that, in the past, has been deemed insignificant and overlooked in terms of funding for crucial services is being listened to, consulted, and provided with what they have been asking for. All of this is making absolutely meaningful improvements to people’s lives. In time, with this positive and fresh approach, the sector will move out of crisis management and hopefully into life enjoyment.
Moving on from these successful forums, our minister is now supporting NTCOSS to host consultative forums in Darwin and Alice Springs. This is an important initiative. The Territory needs a coordinated approach to social services - a partnership of action between the government and non-government sectors. Under our Labor government, these foundation stones to a strong and cooperative future that provides meaningful improvements to our society, are finally being laid. Today’s health statement from Minister Aagaard is another indication that we are working hard in our government to breath new life into the Territory, one that will sustain a healthy society.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, we have had six months now of the new government and they are still moaning about the CLP. You have three-and-a-half years left and you had better be quick on fixing things up with all the grand plans you have espoused tonight - most without much substance - and all the high expectations you have. Quite frankly, I thought that the minister’s statement was a load of waffle. When you first look at it, first read it, there is nothing wrong with it. Why? Because there is nothing in it. It has no substance. I am surprised. I would have thought, having listened to months and months of your grand expectations, that you would have had a lot more in your speech.
I am also surprised that the minister knows about the non-government sector. Why am I surprised? Because of what I hear from members of the non-government sector about how disappointed they are in their lack of access to the minister, the fact that, in order to get messages through, they have to go through one of her minders because she is so busy. I am also surprised, of course, that your plan is talking about crisis management – the need to move from crisis management. Well, I am quite sure that the current CEO must be feeling a bit anxious because he was the CEO under us as well. So, I hope he has his Qantas frequent flyer points all stocked up because I suspect he is going to need them pretty soon.
Now, what is it that you need to do? What it is, is prioritise. I know you are being hit left, right and centre by all sorts of requirements from all sorts of agencies. The tough job when you are in government, instead of moaning and complaining, is to prioritise. And it is hard to do that because you are going to have to disappoint many, many people by having to prioritise. To do that, you need to concentrate on some key items, and may I be so humble as to put forward the issue of hospital nurses. I am glad you picked it up briefly in your statement. As we all know, there is a significant shortage of hospital nurses here in the Northern Territory. Why is this? Well, as a person who has worked for many years as a hospital nurse, let me tell you. The reason is not money for wages, not money for study grants, the reason is that nurses have been trained, they know how to provide a good service, they want to be able to provide that service. The way that you do that is not through increased wages, but by making sure you have nurses working on the wards in a sufficient number to enable the nurses there to do their job and to care for the patients.
You have said in your statement, and you talk in your mini-budget and in your election promises, that you are going to increase the number of hospital nurses in the Northern Territory over the next four years by 75. So, about 18 new nurses in the four public hospitals of the Northern Territory over the next four years. Well, let’s be a little generous with those figures. That might be one for Katherine Hospital a year, one for Tennant Creek Hospital a year, four for Alice Springs Hospital a year, and perhaps twelve at the Royal Darwin Hospital. Well, that’s great. But when you read the mini-budget, read the small print, you find out that the staffing for the hospice and the birthing suite - those promises - guess where they are coming from?
Mr Dunham: And the oncology.
Ms CARTER: And the Oncology Unit. Those nurses are coming out of that allocation of 75 over four years. What I want to know is, how many nurses are going each year into the really tough areas of hospital nursing? And I would claim that to be the medical area. That is what the nurses want to know: where are the staff going? Every area is difficult, but I would say that the medical area is one of the heaviest and most difficult areas to work in. So I ask you, I challenge you, to tell the nurses in Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital in particular, and Katherine and Tennant Creek, how many nurses extra are going into these tough non-glamorous areas to work in? Because that is what they will really want you to do. Because once you get that staffing number right in those units then you attract nurses, you retain nurses because you do not have nurses going home at the end of every shift usually 30 minutes, 45 minutes, an hour late - unpaid overtime - because that is the way that you behave when you are a nurse – generous activities. They want to know how many extra nurses …
Mr Henderson: Why wasn’t this wisdom delivered to the previous health minister?
Ms CARTER: You made the promises, you are in government now, the people voted for you because of these promises. Okay, you tell them how many nurses in each of these units, what are your promises on a per annum basis. It’s not coming out.
I notice from the minister’s statement that she comments about Alice Springs Hospital in particular. I will put it to you that that is somewhat insulting when the reference is in there that previous managers have not tried hard enough to recruit. I can tell you from my experience and from my inside knowledge of this area, the management of Alice Springs Hospital has worked desperately for a long time to try and recruit nurses into their area. It is compounded, of course, by the isolation of Alice Springs, by the general lack of nurses in the profession, people working in the profession, because they don’t really like it anymore. These are your problems. I can just say in defence of the Alice Springs Hospital staff, that I know they have worked tirelessly for a long time in a difficult situation to recruit staff.
I also note from your statement that you are working with the union in an effort to assist in the Alice Springs hospital. Well, that is great, because I have been wondering where the ANF has been for the last six months. They have been very quiet. Prior to that …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARTER: … in the media, but not now, very quiet, and why am I concerned? Because now you have a situation in Alice Springs Hospital where you have non-registered personnel working instead of nurses, and where is the union, where is their voice on this issue? There is a skills difference between registered and non-registered staff, and the criteria must be that registered nurses provide certain skills, and it is not happening at the moment.
Now at last, and by golly it took a long time, the minister has come out with some comments with regard to violence against nurses. She was very quiet a few weeks ago when this issue flared up, but she is out with it now. Personally, my experience is, and I am sure some of you will know what I am talking about, is that what this government tried to do, and they have done it today with the screeches from the member for Sanderson, what they are into, is gagging public servants and certainly that has been occurring with violence against nurses particularly in remote areas. The Public Sector Employment and Management Act gets waved around, and the code of conduct …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARTER: … and for those of you who don’t know, the code of conduct was about public servants not being allowed to speak to the media. Now, when we were in government …
Mr ELFERINK: Point of order, Madam Speaker, I am sure I just heard the minister for health make a comment about the husband of the member for Port Darwin and I am curious to know what that comment was, because it is a general rule of thumb in this Chamber that we don’t reflect on people’s spouses and families.
Mrs Aagaard: I withdraw any comments, Madam Speaker.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, would you resume your seat. Member for Sanderson, you have done this a number of times today. Just refrain from your outrageous behaviour. I am warning you. Member for Port Darwin.
Ms CARTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I do prefer not to have to yell.
Getting back to my point, we had the member for Sanderson comment earlier on in this afternoon’s discussions that he would like to know the name, rank and serial number, essentially, of the prison officers concerned with the previous …
Mr KIELY: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not make such a remark. I did not ask the name, rank or serial number of any officer. I asked for the face and the name of the people who had made the complaints to the member for Katherine so that they could be rightfully addressed through the proper public service procedures.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, will you rephrase your comments.
Ms CARTER: I will accept that that was the member for Sanderson’s statement, and I thank him for it, because it once again reflects that the Public Sector Employment and Management Act is going to be waved around where issues that are brought to the opposition’s notice are being pursued in this Chamber. Gagging, as I say.
The issue of violence and nurses, and being in a remote area is a tough issue, but it is not going to be solved by what often gets mooted – cross-cultural training and the like, so that nurses can understand the problem better, and I suspect, duck when the time comes. In the minister’s speech, she makes a comment and refers to the aggression response strategy. I look forward to hearing more about it and seeing how she develops that over the next few years. Can I say, that what I hope is in it, is the need to conduct safety audits at each of the nursing stations, the health stations out bush, to conduct a risk analysis based on that audit. The actions that come from that may include some level of training, but they may also include the need for escorts, so that when a nurse is called out after hours and there is no one much around, that there is someone there to escort him or her to the area where the patient might be and to stay with them to offer some element of safety. They might also have guards at the community health centre. This sounds all very drastic, but you know that from time to time, situations arise out bush where such measures are needed. At the moment what tends to happen on communities, through the goodwill of the community volunteers from within the population provide those services. In some communities it works very well, but it is an ad hoc measure and it is a difficult thing to sustain. It is something that this government must look at.
From that, of course, comes what do you do with a member from a community who does assault a nurse. I believe the person should be pursued in the usual manner, prosecuted and sent to jail. These people are not the result of some sort of process. These people are bad people who assault nurses. They should not do it, we do not tolerate it in any of our urban centres, and we should not be tolerating it out bush either. There is no need to be weak about it, no need to be politically correct, pursue these people and show everybody that you mean business, that nurses must be safe out in remote communities.
In her statement, the minister makes a brief reference to the issue of drug use in our community. We all know that in a few months this government is going to set up a methadone maintenance program or something similar, using some sort of similar drug. I just want to make a comment on behalf of the people from Port Darwin, and that is we look forward to seeing your clinic and your program established in Fannie Bay.
Speaking of the minister’s statement, I notice no mention of the hospice. I wonder what has happened to that. I hope we hear more about that in the next few days of these sittings. Where is the hospice?
In conclusion, I found it a disappointing statement. It is the first effort from the minister. I know it has been cobbled together by your bureaucrats, but my disappointment does not matter at all. What really matters is the disappointment of the 40% of Territorians who voted Labor at the last election, because three-and-a-half years down the track from now, you are going to be up for re-election again and these are the things that are going to perhaps come back and bite you.
Mr AH KIT: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member for Port Darwin should address her comments through the Chair instead of across the Chamber and being provocative.
Madam SPEAKER: The point of order is correct. Please direct your comments, and that applies to all the speakers.
Ms CARTER: I do apologise, Madam Speaker, for this provocative activity. In three-and-a-half years the Territory population will go to the polls and the outcome of statements like this will be measured, they will be evaluated. But what do we have after six months - only an element of crisis coming from our new minister. This statement is weak and it comes from a weak minister. I would like to see her moved out, and let’s have somebody who can do something. Somebody who can deal with more than one portfolio - I notice she only has one – and also capable of developing priorities.
May I say, minister, you need to impress not just me, or the population but also your colleagues on the other side, because your colleagues have very high ideals, I know that, and they are going to be easily disappointed. You are going to be frustrated over the next few years as the realisation of what it is like to be government comes in and settles on you. So I do wish you all the best, but I think it was a weak effort. We look forward to seeing how you progress.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, direct your comments through the Chair. Member for Greatorex, quiet. It would be good if government members would allow their member to have her say.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I rise in relation to the Minister for Health and Community Services’ statement regarding her department’s priorities for the next 12 months. First up, I welcome the commitment that has been made by the minister to table, during the next sittings, a statement specifically focussing on indigenous health. After 26 years of successive CLP governments, the life expectancy for indigenous people in the Northern Territory is still 15 to 20 years lower than for non-indigenous Territorians. On almost every health indicator, indigenous Territorians remain at the bottom of the scale. This cannot be allowed to continue, and I certainly look forward to elaborating further when the time arises during the statement.
Another comment that I wish to make, and without wanting in any way to diminish - and I don’t want this to be misinterpreted or misunderstood in any way - the fundamentally important role that nurses play in our health system, a role that is mentioned in the minister’s statement. I would like to take a moment to highlight the special role which is very rarely mentioned because when we talk about primary health care services - and anyone who has had the years that they purport to have working out in remote communities - yes, nurses play a very important role. But there is another discipline that works alongside nurses, and that is the special role that Aboriginal health workers play in that system. They not only have their clinical workload but are, in most cases, the cultural brokers between the community and non-Aboriginal staff and are expected to take the brunt of the social and emotional pressure as well. A review of this area needs to happen, and I look forward to working with the Minister for Health and Community Services in addressing this.
When things go wrong, they are most likely to wear the lion’s share of the blame; the declining number of health workers is substantially due to the lack of support they receive. This is a great matter of concern to me, and is one that I want to join the Minister for Health and Community Services in addressing. I wholeheartedly endorse the proposed shift of emphasis away from crisis management in favour of strategic decision making. For too long the health of Territorians, including those from my electorate, have suffered as a result of short term and short-sighted programs and policies developed under former CLP ministers.
Youth suicide: over the past three weeks, I have felt the sorrow and pain as a family member where there has been senseless suicides of three young men. The commitment from our health minister to address this as a priority is welcomed. Everyone in this parliament has in some way been confronted or touched by this issue, either directly or indirectly, and we certainly need to address it.
Madam Speaker, I support and commend the statement by the Minister for Health and Community Services.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is my intention to walk through the statement because I think the themes will become evident, but it follows pretty much on the structure that the 5th floor seems to have put in place for the Chief Minister, and that is a bit of blaming, a bit of, ‘You know, it would be well except for you’. Some little glimpses of light on the horizon, many of which have their origins in the policies and practices of the former government, and then finishing with quite an unusual admission that there are some big problems in Alice Springs. Now, we know that. So, it is a bit of pre-emptive strike, this statement, because I think it was evident to nearly everybody that there are some significant problems in Alice Springs Hospital, and with the mini-statement this morning and with this statement, there is an attempt to say: ‘Well, we know about it and it is your fault, anyway’, which I understand is a paraphrase grab of what has been said in the media. I thought if I just walk through the statement it will give a quick edit for honourable members, and it would give the minister some insight into how we think about some of these things.
Right at the front, the minister talks about equality of opportunity, equality of participation to maximise the health and overall quality of life. This goes to the exact point that the former Treasurer tried to make to the minister for industries and business, and that is about the Grants Commission and the monies that come to us and the fact that we live in a Commonwealth - two words joined to one, meaning the money goes across the lot of us.
The whole idea of arguing the case in the Northern Territory is that we do not have equality of access. We do not have it. Aboriginal people do not have it. Territorians do not have it. The cultural cringe that the member for Wanguri has about the fact that the Commonwealth gives more money on a per capita basis to the Territory than any other place goes to the heart of the statement. In fact, one of the speakers, the member for Karama talked about hoping that the minister fixes up this issue and to do it, and hoping she is successful in her discussions with the Commonwealth. The fact is, that is where the treasure chest is, and in the Territory we do not have equality of access. There are a variety of documents that will show you that, and one of the problems is a fundamental problem with a thing called the Australian Health Care Agreement and how funds are distributed to doctors and pharmacists through the MBS and PBS agreements.
This is an issue that, with Labor governments around Australia, could be taken on. We could take the politics out of it and say: ‘Australia’s health system does not serve us well. It is not geared well to maintaining health. It is geared well to paying doctors’. I think if we can take this - there were other discussions, too - what does the opposition think about the future? Here is a future for you. Let’s look at how we reconfigure the nation’s health system and let’s reconfigure it to the best benefit of the Territory, but also Australians, because we should be looking to have a health system that attends to health rather than pays doctors.
There is one thing in the first couple of paragraphs where we would probably agree with her. I mean, they have the ducks all lined up now, and it is one of those things that people have taken to elections before and said: ‘This mob will wreck Medicare and it’s a very precious thing’. I think it could be changed for the better, and that is something that could be injected into this sort of debate.
Now we get into the litany of terrible things we have done, and we are only on page 2: ‘Compounding the severe budget difficulties we inherited coming into government’. Then it makes an allegation about us which is untrue, and that is: ‘For the sake of members opposite who seem to think we are rolling in untold wealth and thus can fund every organisation who makes a claim for additional money ...’ Now, we have said to this minister: ‘Everybody who comes to see you is going to want money and there is a finite budget and an infinite need’. We have told her the exact opposite of this. That is that it does not matter how much you have, it will not be enough to meet all the demands that come through your door and it is a good theme that the member for Port Darwin gave her - prioritise. Work out your priority areas. And she does that later on, to her credit. In the speech, when we get to page 4, she lists a series of priority areas.
It is not a good allegation to put at the feet of this opposition to say: ‘We believe you have tons of cash.’ We do believe that the $34m extra should be more adequately described to this House, how it has been deployed, particularly in the face of the fact that the CEO asked for an additional $20m and we are interested to know where that money has been deployed. We are interested to know whether it has had the impact of bettering the health status of Territorians. That is what we want to know. I mean, we do not want to know the exact detail other than if you put an injection of funds of this magnitude into a system, we think there should be outcomes, and we think they should be measurable, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that.
Anyway, we get now to the $34m, yet only $17.3m of this was for ongoing items; the rest to meet one-off expenses. We only have $1m left. This is interesting because the Public Accounts Committee is looking at the rollovers, and the rollovers for the Territory Health Services, I think, went to something like $2m. So there are some allegations in here about the difficulties with meeting ongoing commitments, and there is an attempt to leave it as a thing that was inherited. That, I think, is a little bit misleading for this place, and I think that they should probably revisit page 3 and have a good look at it because the health minister will be visiting the PAC and the health minister will give evidence, and some of the questions may well come out of page 3. I mean, they may well come out of the fact that there was $34m extra given - and don’t forget the terms of reference for the PAC, the so-called terrible memo, was about $8m.
So, the numbers we are talking about here are certainly much larger than those which originally confronted this House by way of a censure motion and they are the sort of numbers that I think the current health minister should be well prepared about when she finally comes to talk to the PAC.
Now we go to the broad vision. Broad vision - a phrase we hear a lot - must include, and here are the dot points, and they are not bad: improved health services, medical nursing, attractive conditions - and, like my colleague from Port Darwin, as you get into the statement, you realise these are good things to hear but they are platitudes. This is a statement of platitudes. This is a statement that has come out of reports and people’s heads, and it has been regurgitated to have, I suppose, about three points. One, we did terrible things with the money, which is a theme that comes right throughout every speech we have in here. Two, we know what we are doing and we have a plan and a vision and all those things they talk about. Three, there is a problem with Alice Springs Hospital, but don’t worry, we know about that and anyway it is your problem. And somehow it is intended to give the impression this minister has some handle on her job. And it fails in that also, but I will get to that later.
Anyway, so we go through the dot points, and what I did when I went through them is, I thought well, there may be some things that are missing from here and on a quick count, I mean one of the things in her portfolio - dental, I think is pretty important, is not in there. Children at risk, that is pretty important stuff. Disabilities, gets a mention later on but it is not really in the dot points unless you want to include a robust Community Services sector. Aged care, not really there much. Palliative care, my colleague found, was missing. Disease control, this is pretty important stuff, disease control. This is immunisation of children. This is vector control so that mosquitoes don’t bite people and they get Ross River and all that sort of stuff. It is issues relating to the high incidence of STDs in our communities that has to be recognised, and a potential threat of HIV from East Timor.
This is a significant area of government action that is totally missing out of this statement, and certainly missing out of this statement and certainly missing out of the priority areas. Childcare, I would have thought that an incoming Labor government that claims to have the monopoly on caring and compassion, and women’s issues, and all of those things that people have taken up cudgels for years, would have a mention of childcare. Just even if it just slipped in there somewhere, but it is not there.
So, not only does this statement fail in saying that all of the problems were inherited because of the money problem, not only does it fail in saying the government knows what it is doing - because they don’t - and the minister has a handle on it. Not only does it fail by saying: ‘Please don’t politicise Alice Springs Hospital because we’ve ’fessed up in here. We’ve told you it’s a problem, we’ve told you it’s in crisis. Now leave it alone because otherwise you’re politicising it’. It fails on all of those counts. And the failure is abysmal because this is such an important area. We will debate these again tomorrow, some of these issues, and we hope during these sittings we will get a few other opportunities.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: I shan’t be picking up interjections, Mr Deputy Speaker, because time is limited and some of the interjections that are being levied really only have the ambition of trying to drown the microphones. So, ‘We’ve been left with a plethora of problems to sort, historically unrealistic funding’ blah, blah, blah, and it talks about the non-government sector which has encouraged fragmentation, inefficiencies, dependencies where we need robustness and vitality. So the corollary is, the opposite of fragmentation is collectivism or bringing them together, unification. Inefficiencies means that they have spent more money than they needed, therefore we will cut it, and dependencies means that they were too dependent on the government and we think they should be more independent and more on their own feet. This is code for, ‘we are going to jam you altogether and give you less money’. That is code for that, there is absolutely no doubt about it.
Moving the entire portfolio out of crisis management, that is a allegation that I think is an unfair allegation on the management of Territory Health Services, and it is made again later. I think it is one of those things where it has the potential to send some shivers through the public service. I am happy to say on the record that we do not believe that it is in crisis management to the extent that it is beyond any sort of redemption. The biggest issue confronting the Health Minister is her position in the job and it is something she is going to have to look at because that is the biggest impediment to efficiency in this particular portfolio area.
So, we talk about how we are going to fix it, another buzz word. We’re going to have a change process. Okey doke. And then she says: ‘We are putting in the hard yards, more sustainable, we’re going to fix it up’, quote: ‘This will take time, effort and I stress again, responsible stewardship to achieve’. This is an excuse for sloth - one of the seven deadly sins. This is an excuse that, just because it is not happening, don’t think we are not doing anything. We are working away there; just going to take a bit of time.
When we turn to our hospitals, which is the next bit, it leaves out a very, very significant portion. I mean, the whole capacity to re-focus our hospital effort is to introduce new players, ie, private providers, ie, private hospitals. And it is missing from this statement. Not only do the consumers want choice, whether they avail themselves of it or not is a moot point, but people do want choice and for that reason they carry private health insurance. We also think there is great potential for private sector involvement that is missing from this.
‘Public hospitals in urgent need of steady management and reform …’ - again, another criticism of the management. Problems in the Alice Springs Hospital are ‘… nothing short of alarming’. I want to know if the minister has been there, what she has done, who she has spoken to. Because it is no good getting reports saying that it is in crisis, going on the TV and the radio saying: ‘Look, it’s a big problem down there’. Go and look, go and have a look, it is not that far away.
The nursing shortage, to all intents and purpose ignored by the previous government. Now, I know parliamentary practice prohibits me from saying that is a lie, but that statement finds it very difficult to reconcile with the truth because it is not been something that has been ignored by the previous government. There has been immense amounts of work going into it and that work is on the public record, so it is easily able to be checked.
Patients, here we are, Centralian residents, patients having to wait for beds, etc, etc. I will leave this because I think my colleague from Central Australia will comment more fulsomely on it. But I will make the comment that one of the issues about rebuilding the community’s confidence in the Public Hospital system is because it has been eroded by Labor attacks over a number of years. The member for Wanguri is on the public record saying that A and E is so bad in Royal Darwin Hospital nobody goes there. The reason the numbers are so low is because no one would want to go there. No one would be treated there, no one would take their dog there. That is a pretty significant indictment and the erosion of confidence is because they have inherited their own rhetoric and it has come back to bite them on the backside.
Then we go into this business of some fudgy figures: ‘Don’t you worry, it’s going to get better. As I speak elective surgery is back on the increase. The opening of two new theatres’. You have to benchmark this. All this stuff, all the epidemiological stuff, all the occasions of care, all the weighted estimated in-line systems, all those things are available for this House to peruse in terms of, it is getting better; it used to be this, now it is that. We treated this many people; now we are treating that many people.
It is interesting, for instance, if we go to budget figures. When we left this portfolio area, growth in hospitals was about 2%, and we found with the mini-budget they have something like four times that amount in financial increases. We found that interstate patient assisted travel scheme was steady and even declining. That has gone up remarkably. This government has to tell us why, they have to say why those figures have gone up, and you cannot just say there will be less people on waiting lists and more people treated for elective surgery and you didn’t have much money and all that sort of stuff.
The nurses up 70 in five years - I thank the member for Port Darwin for putting that whole furphy to bed. I will make a comment about methodology again. The previous speaker, having been castigated by the Speaker for departing remarkably from her speech in a number of areas and I think, to give her credit, it was because of omission. She got to the end of the speech, she had not mentioned arts or ethnics so she just put arts and ethnics down the bottom, but the same thing has happened with this minister where I had a circulated speech which has now been changed. The change is probably due to embarrassment. She is going to fix up the real problem of violence against nurses. Quote: ‘This is a complex issue, for which there is no quick fix. But again, with stewardship, real improvements can be made’. Now stewardship is looking after other people’s stuff. And I could not understand how the government, the minister, looking after other people’s business, would fix that, until I looked up the dictionary. And a steward is someone in charge of a mess. And I think that is the heart of the problem. The speech was changed to put in the word ‘leadership’, but I am quite happy to table my copy of the circulated speech.
What we have here is somebody in charge of the mess, and they are also trying to reconcile that. The minister has no idea, very little idea of holistic primary health care, has very little idea of work in a clinical setting and she overlaps the two of them. I am very interested to see how we ask nurses - these are nurses in a hospital - and these hospital nurses are being asked to look ‘… beyond the wound, the disease, take in the whole person, their history, their wider social, political and cultural circumstances’. I think most nurses in the Territory would find that offensive. They would find it offensive to be looking at the political circumstances of a person they are treating. The fact that somebody might possess the politics of those over, the politics of division and all that stuff that they now try to parade out as something they would like to forget - but that statement in there about nurses looking beyond the wound at the political circumstances of someone, I think is offensive. It is offensive to me and it is offensive to nurses. Now, I think it offends one of the bills we were debating this morning, the anti-discrimination bill.
There are many, many more things in here that we have to address and I think we will do it …
Dr Burns: That you don’t want to talk about, like drug abuse and morphine.
Mr DUNHAM: I pick up the interjection, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could I ask for an extension of time please?
Mr Ah Kit: No.
Mr DUNHAM: I do want to talk about it, and I don’t have time. I will finish by saying we have a minister here who is the bunny in the spotlight. She has the job, she can hear the diesel truck, the little white ears are twitching, the nose is up, the little myopic eyes are looking into the headlights, and she is saying: ‘Ah well, there is a problem here’. Now, the little rumbling on the road she hears of Alice Springs Hospital, the disability sector, ain’t nothing, it ain’t nothing compared to …
Mr AH KIT : A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Would you like to indicate that the member’s time has expired?
Dr Lim: No, it has not.
Mr AH KIT: No, I am just asking you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.
Mr DUNHAM: No, I think it is a deliberate waste of time. Resume your seat. The bunny in the spotlight …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order. There is still time.
Mr DUNHAM: … is looking up and can smell the diesel and feel the ground rumble. Now, I think it is time that she reviews her position. To say the non-government sector are happy, we have had these disability meetings and they are just swimming with joy over this unmet need, is a patent nonsense. The sector is livid, the sector is worried, the sector is concerned about the style of Labor in being vindictive about treating people who speak out. Many of them come to me and want me to take it up to her. What I have been saying to her is: ‘This is your job. You did it for me, you always criticised me if you thought that I was doing things you did not like. Please go and see this minister’. They can’t get in, they can’t get near her. The letter that I saw that was sent out saying: ‘There was 600 groups who want to see me’ and ‘Sorry, I will get to you in the next couple of …’ - they still can not get in. This is a problem.
The minister made promises and she was away on R and R at the time, so it was done on her behalf, and, ‘I’m off to Tennant’. Did not make it. Did not make it to Tennant Creek.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Ms CARTER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the shadow minister be allowed an extension of time to complete his comments.
Motion negatived.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to speak in support of the minister’s statement regarding health and, more importantly, in support of the minister for health’s concerted and honest response on behalf of the Martin government in providing a strategic response, thus ensuring a viable, efficient and cost-effective health care in the interests of all sectors of the community in the Territory.
The task before us cannot be underestimated and, clearly, we need to proceed in a strategic and measured way utilising the existing health professionals and expert management within Territory Health, and also being bold and innovative by developing partnerships with the non-government sector, indigenous health carers and, where appropriate, the health sector. The minister for health referred to the national shortage of nurses and its resultant impact, in part, on our capacity to provide sustainable health services in the major centres and regions. I applaud the minister in respect of the development of a new marketing strategy for recruitment purposes and improved career structures for nurses.
I also believe that we must consider the review of the role of indigenous health workers. Indigenous health workers for a long period of time have performed a very important role in addressing the deplorable health status of people in the bush in very trying circumstances, dissimilar to what occurs to our community health nurses. I would argue that the dynamics of communities have changed in the Territory over the last 20 years and so it would logically follow, so would the role of indigenous health workers, and equally, I would suspect, the expectations of the members of the community. I would put to members on both sides of the House, that people living in communities and on pastoral properties, at roadhouses etc, expect the same level of care and quality of care afforded their city cousins within the resource base.
Polite nurses and health workers have been burdened with an impossible task of being all things to all people with minimum support and a lack of a career structure. It may now be timely to investigate the options of separating the role of health carers in communities into two separate functions - one having a primary health care clinical role and a the other a preventative public health function. These are mainly in the larger communities. Certainly, there would be resource implications, but it may be worth looking at as part of the zone development.
I now turn to the multi-purpose services initiative aimed at improving the provision and viability of aged and health care service in rural remote areas of the Territory. This initiative allows the integration of existing aged care services, thus ensuring a better coordination and a more flexible response to the community’s direction and needs under the one management structure. This initiative also increases the capacity to manage human resources such as staff, recruitment and training at a local level. Discussions have been ongoing since September 2001, and a steering committee has been established consisting of all stakeholders, and I understand that a project officer will be appointed to progress this model in consultation with the community when appropriate. I am, of course, referring to the MPS model.
I am pleased to report the establishment of two health zones north and south of Tennant Creek, and one for the Gulf country including Borroloola and Robinson River. These initiatives will have a significant impact on allowing the communities in question to have a real say in developing their respective health services and, I trust, will promote and engender a degree of ownership - perhaps lacking in the past - and make real inroads in alleviating the ill health that is so prevalent in this region. Also, in respect of zone development and as an indication of our commitment to be inclusive and to involve all stakeholders, I, on behalf of the minister, approached the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association basically requesting that they be party to the exercise. I understand a briefing will be provided to the same in the very near future. But, in respect to these zone development initiatives, and as the minister mentioned, we will have to be vigilant and be ready to provide support and assistance as required during these changes, and I am absolutely certain that we will.
Also in regards to Borroloola , the Chairperson of the Northern Territory Liquor Commission will be visiting this community very soon to consult and assist the community in developing a strategy in respect to excessive alcohol abuse which will dovetail into the zone development process.
Of interest to me and many others on both sides of this House, is the issue of youth suicide and its debilitating effect on small communities in the bush. During my short period in this place, there have been at least three suicides, and one attempted, in my electorate, all being young people. I am grateful that the minister has recognised this very real and traumatic issue and made a commitment to at least try to address it. I would remind the opposition that it is not before time.
I take this opportunity to advise of recent developments in respect to the establishment of the renal dialysis unit in Tennant Creek. Over the past few months, the Renal Management Committee in Tennant Creek has been working in close consultation with the minister for the health’s department, specifically Julie Whatley, in progressing this initiative, to the extent that a project officer will be appointed very shortly to assist the committee in coordinating local responses such as patient and accommodation travel, and support for the families and the patients. Again, I say that this initiative is well overdue and again to the opposition, not before time. It is important to note in respect of the Renal Dialysis Unit, that all stakeholders are working very closely together to bring this much needed facility online by the end of this month.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Julie Whatley, Dr Randal Davis, Ashley Frost, Barb Shaw, Graham Buxton, Dr Helen Carney, Mark Raymond, Ruby Frank, Carol Fitzslade, Anyinginyi Congress Board, and Julalikari Council and Territory Health for their commitment and dedication in respect of this project.
I applaud the minister for health for approaching the Northern Territory Council of Social Services to convene two fora to bring the non-government sector together to jointly foster solutions and in the interest of all service providers on an industry wide basis. It is very important that we as a government include all interests in a very honest and straight way thus maximising the dollar allocation in a very responsible manner.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to the minister for health’s realistic response to the many difficult and pressing health issues we face.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I join in this debate having read through the minister’s statement on a couple of occasions trying to glean what I can from it. It really is a statement full of motherhood statements, platitudes. It is a statement from a minister who has done nothing much about her portfolio. There is no denying it. Let’s not deny it. We know that caucus has reprimanded the minister for her incapacity to perform in her portfolio.
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: Your children have been to school telling people that caucus had reprimanded and the minister is heading for the chop. Well, we will be seeing that soon I trust. You have contributed very little to this portfolio and you talk about equal opportunities across the Territory for all Territorians. You admit it yourself that Alice Springs Hospital is in diabolical trouble. And what have you done about it? Nothing.
Mr Stirling: What did you do in your Minister with responsibility for Central Australia? What did you do?
Dr LIM: What have you done about it? Nothing. At least I helped out. What have you done? You did nothing. There is no equal opportunity for all Territorians when you have a hospital in Alice Springs that is dysfunctional, inadequately staffed, inadequately resourced, beds going wanting, patients lying there in emergency for up to three days waiting for a bed in a ward and then you have a full private wing completed and sitting empty. That is irresponsible. You could use that ward as a step down facility to get those less demanding patients out of the rooms.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, please address your remarks through the Chair.
Dr LIM: The minister could get the private wing operational now as a step down facility easily so that patients who require less demanding care could be housed in there freeing up the beds in the ward for acute care. That is easily done. Doesn’t take much imagination to do that. But what has she done about it? Nothing. It was boarded up at one stage. Why? Because itinerants had found a fire escape through which they could get into the private wing and they were camping there for the night. Finally, they had to turn them out because somebody caught them sleeping in that wing. Now they have some secretarial staff in there so that they can keep an eye on the particular property.
The minister talked about her mini-budget where she gave $34.2m to the Health Department. I know for a fact that the Chief Executive Officer asked for $20m and through the mini-budget he received $34.2m. But the minister had the audacity to tell us that she only has $1m left. How is that Chief Executive Officer functioning? How has he managed to spend so much money and only have $1m left for the rest of this financial year? It makes no sense. When he asked for $20m, he received $34.2m and he has $1m left. Now, either he is not working well or she is not working well and you tell me who is the one not functioning.
She has allowed the hospital in Alice Springs to become so dysfunctional that many patients now are not getting treatment. Patients are being flown out of Alice Springs because they cannot receive treatment that they used to receive in the hospital. In the Centralian Advocate on 11 December last year, in big headlines on the front page, ‘Doctor tells of hospital crisis’:
A seriously ill man had to wait three days to get into intensive care, a doctor has claimed.
The doctor, who asked not to be named, has demanded the hospital tell the public just how bad
conditions are. The doctor said:
That is the type of problem the Alice Springs Hospital is facing and this minister has the audacity to tell us she has been to Alice Springs three times to look at the hospital; in six months she has been there three times. If you have a hospital that is falling apart you would be there every day looking at it to see what is going on and making sure that the department and the managerial staff are looking after it properly.
Another rather large headline we have seen in the same newspaper of 11 December last year ‘Hospital plea: Not urgent? See a GP’:
Alice Springs Hospital management have issued a plea: If it’s not urgent please see your GP.
The plea followed claims that Alice Springs Hospital was facing a ‘super crisis’.
That is what it says there. And the minister tells me that she is doing her work well.
Another one within a couple of weeks, 25 January 2002 ‘Alice Springs Hospital in Crisis Mode’, a long letter written by someone in Alice Springs:
The people of Alice Springs are not being adequately informed about the shortages at the hospital. But you
need to look at who is making it difficult for nurses to accept a position and stay in the region. The hospital is
letting the town and the nurses down.
Nurses at the hospital have attempted to pass the concerns on to the Chief Minster’s Office here in Alice Springs
but nobody there wanted to know or couldn’t do anything about it, so where do we go now?
A couple of paragraphs down the letter continues:
Six nurses recently resigned due to overly heavy workloads and the inability of the hospital to recognise and
rectify the problem.
Then it says further on:
So what is the message, that the overuse of the good nature of many nurses at the hospital is satisfactory, that
the fact that they are burnt out, tired and fed up is of no concern?
How many people in the community know a nurse who has left this hospital - and in some cases left nursing
altogether - because they were not appreciated at the ASH and refuse to work in the Alice Springs Hospital
ever again.
That is the type of problems that have been going on: Injured man – 14 hours of agony. Another letter titled, ‘Long wait for surgery queried’:
Is this the same department that has had my husband on the Alice Springs Hospital elective surgery waiting
list for 13 months for a hernia operation?
Our town has a lovely ‘new’ hospital, and now there’s obviously plenty of money to direct towards worthwhile
projects, so why should someone who is in constant pain and discomfort, and whose livelihood is threatened by
an inability to work to 100% capacity, have to wait without hearing so much as a word of explanation or
encouragement?
And finally, the minister could not respond. She had to hide behind her CEO to respond, telling us how her hospitals would improve. And what? The hospital has not improved. The hospital has not improved. We have been to briefings at the hospital by the manager of the hospital, by the medical superintendent and the acting director of nursing and the story they tell us universally is that the hospital has great problems and management is struggling to try to convince the Darwin bureaucrats and the minister that they have to pay attention to Alice Springs. They have said that.
Mr Henderson: This is the CLP Darwin bureaucrat Len Notaris, is it?
Dr LIM: I take on that interjection from the member for Wanguri. He knows full well that Len Notaris is no longer responsible down there, that he has been sidelined by the Darwin bureaucrats and the minister and the government. They have sidelined him. The challenge that this minister faces is, number one, to do her job properly, and she has not done that. You talked about your hospitals, improvement in patient care. Well, you have failed there. You have definitely failed there. Reduction of waste and duplication - you failed there, too. Now, if I wanted to give you a report card, the minister is going to score very, very badly.
We talked about the operating theatre. The minister said that now two theatres are open, there will be more surgery. On the page before it, it says that she could not find any nurses. She could not find any nurses for the Alice Springs Hospital and that is the problem. But then she opens two new theatre suites and suddenly we will do more surgery. Where are the nurses going to come from? She contradicts herself in this statement, or maybe she did not bother to read it through properly first before she approved of this speech that somebody wrote for her.
Think about it. The advisors are sitting in the box there, they maybe should think about it, too, that they do not contradict themselves and make the minister look really foolish. You cannot have two new theatres…
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been well regarded practice in this House that we do not reflect on people sitting in the advisors’ boxes; they are public servants and they should not be the target of the members’ comments.
Dr LIM: They are not public servants, they are your servants, and I can say that the minister’s advisors wrote the speech for her.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. Member for Greatorex, there was a point of order. I agree with the point of order. I think you need to withdraw the comment about…
Dr LIM: Well, I will withdraw the comment that they are sitting in the boxes, but I can say that the minister’s advisors wrote the statement for her. I can say that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think just stick with the spirit of what we are trying to do.
Dr LIM: No, what I’m saying - I withdraw the statement that I said they were sitting in the boxes, but I can say that the speech was written by her advisors and they did it wrongly. They did not consider the contradiction they wrote in the minister’s statement that she then has to present and make a fool of herself.
Dr Burns: Mean spirited.
Dr LIM: Mean spirited?
Dr Burns: Absolutely.
Dr LIM: You should look at the mirror sometime and see what you see there.
Dr Burns: I have a generous spirit.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr LIM: Elective surgery in Alice Springs has suffered so greatly in the last six months, it is a disgrace. Patients are being flown out of town because the Alice Springs Hospital cannot look after them any more. This is the only hospital a thousand miles from any major centre. We have regarded that hospital as our main focus of all health treatment and this government has not cared for it.
Ms Scrymgour: Neither did your government.
Dr LIM: I did my bit, and my government did very well to put $30m of refurbishment of the hospital, making sure it is the best hospital that money can buy for Central Australia, and we even provided a private wing. We had three very strong expressions of interest, and what do we have today? We have an empty ward not used for anything except for a couple of secretaries working in a typing room; that is all it is used for. What a waste of money, and this town desperately needs it. This town has many people who are privately insured; they should be given the choice and they cannot even have that.
The minister ought to know that by using a private hospital facility, it will free up at least 15 beds in the public system. That in itself will help the hospital, but what has the minister done about it? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. She has not spoken to any of the GPs to see whether they might be encouraged to use that part of the hospital. There are private specialists working at the Alice Springs Hospital and in the Alice Springs town itself. They could be using the private wing, but they have not done that. They have not done that. It is important that the minister should get to Alice Springs at least once a month, if not more frequently, to see what is wrong with the system and sort it out.
The minister talked about the housing for – she is in joint planning with the Departments of Housing and Health and Community Services for Territorians whose accommodation needs are complex and difficult to meet. Well, did you know that the minister, in bold headlines, ‘ALP fails to keep pledge on hostel’? The ALP pre-election promise was to fully fund the Red Shield Hostel in Alice Springs and now, in the last few weeks, her weasel words, she has tried and tell them: ‘No, you can’t. You can have $64 000 and do what we tell you’. And that is the sort of mean spirited ALP that causes expectations in Alice Springs that cannot be met. It is important for the minister to fulfil the ALP pledge before the election. People are sleeping in the river as Captain Derek Schmidtke said, and also Major Merrett. People are being sent away from the regional hostel with blankets to sleep in the river, and over this last two or three weeks in Alice Springs the rains have been pretty bad. We are nearly as wet down there as you are up here, and you could not sleep in the river. It is time the ALP fulfils its promises.
I am sorry that this statement is really not acceptable from a Central Australian perspective; it is woefully deficient. I say once more to the minister: it is important that she gets down there, talks to the officers, and make sure that the Chief Minister’s office in Alice Springs is accessible to people because at present it is not. It is a woeful statement.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I just thought I would raise a couple of points …
Mr Kiely: Better come back in, that’s what you thought.
Mr BALDWIN: Oh, you’re here. Are you back?
Mr Deputy Speaker, a couple of points - in fact, one that you raised very eloquently yourself that I intended to raise, and that is the news today of a proposed funding cut to one very well known, unique, in fact, alcohol rehabilitation centre, and that is of course the Five Mile Rehabilitation Centre at Daly River, one that you are very familiar with. Having talked to the folk there just today, they are very concerned by a recent visit by health staff to that facility and talks with the administration of that facility in regards to the future funding of that Five Mile Rehabilitation Centre. I say it is unique because the demand on that facility from around Australia - not just the Northern Territory but around Australia because it is seen as a unique style of rehabilitating substance abuse problems, particularly alcohol problems - is well known, well documented, and speaks volumes for itself in the demand of people who would like to go there.
It has been held up over many, many years, as the member for Nelson has articulated, for its great success. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, you quoted 99%. I would put it almost at 100%, but we won’t quibble about 1%. It is a unique facility. It is unique because it brings the families there, they work on an holistic basis and my understanding- and I would like the minister to confirm this because it is causing great concern not only at Five Mile but at the Nauiyu community which is very much involved in this centre. It is not only a source for local pride, it is not only a source for local employment, it is not only a place of refuge in times of floods. In fact over the last week as the 17 m of water that came down the Katherine River flowing into the Daly River, as we all know it does, the Five Mile is a refuge for the Nauiyu people. So there is a very close association, a very close connection there, and there is great concern amongst the 500 or so population in that region as to the future of Five Mile, and what it means when an officer of your department comes down, under instruction from your policy development, and says, we no longer fund these types of facilities in the way they have been funded in the past. The member for Nelson articulated the type of funding and the amounts of funding.
I would like to clarify here tonight, in fact, I have undertaken to get some clarification for the people at both the Nauiyu Council and the Five Mile facility to get some answers as to this latest information that they have received that they may have to close their doors on 30 June 2002 this year. It would be very upsetting for everybody concerned, the Catholic diocese, the people who work in that facility and the rehabilitated families. And I say families because that is how they treat the people who have abuse problems. It is not just individuals that they deal with, they deal with whole families, and there would be great concern if this facility was to close. It is of utmost importance. You mentioned that you were going to bring on an Aboriginal health statement. I look forward to that, but I cannot wait for answers. I will raise this question in that statement which may come on in the next sittings, and it is going to be interesting to see what you have to say. But this needs an answer tonight because it is of great concern.
The other issue that I know you are aware of, and also deals with alcohol rehabilitation, is the issue at Dillinya. I am sure you are very well aware of where Dillinya is now, and what it does and how it has been funded. You might say this was a one-off funding program. In fact, if I was to step into your shoes for a minute, not that I want to, but if I was, I think …
Ms Lawrie: You wouldn’t be able to.
Mr BALDWIN: No I wouldn’t, that is true. I will pick up that interjection. I would not be able to step into the minister’s shoes.
I would say that your answer to this Dillinya question might be that this was a CLP initiative that only had one-off funding. Okay, and I accept that, because it was a CLP initiative, and it did have some funding for a year’s worth of operational funds, in terms of salary. But this is another unique program, run by Aboriginal people, on Aboriginal land, with the involvement of traditional owners of that land, to help find solutions for alcohol abuse problems, and substance abuse of other types, in a way different to what we are used to. It was a pilot program; there was initial funding. You might also say that there has never been an official application, and I will accept that too, but I would like to see some undertaking tonight …
Mr Ah Kit: Do your job, you’re the local member.
Mr BALDWIN: Absolutely, and I will pick up that interjection, because I am the local member, and this is how this whole issue came to light. One of the counsellors of that pilot program and one of the traditional owners, rang me out of concern that she had heard nothing about additional funding. Anglicare is the support agency, and they were having trouble getting anywhere, I guess, with what the future might hold for Dillinya, and if there was no official application for funding, I will accept that, that’s fine.
However, I was disturbed when the minister’s office rang that particular person at Dillinya to ask if this had been a set up by Baldwin, very concerned, and I don’t think I will repeat what the lady told me she said to the officer from the minister’s office in regard to that question, but it would be very interesting for some of you to hear it in other forums. I take umbrage at that, because, I am sure the member for Arnhem knows the particular lady I am talking about, and she is a lady of such determination, such courage, and such conviction in what she is doing, in having developed her own program as far as alcohol rehabilitation goes, and having …
Mr Ah Kit: Why didn’t you help them get incorporated?
Mr BALDWIN: Pardon?
Mr Ah Kit: Why didn’t you help them get incorporated?
Mr BALDWIN: They are incorporated.
Mrs Aagaard: No they’re not. That is why they cannot get funding directly.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay, the member for Arnhem asked why they can’t be incorporated. So, is that an excuse?
Mr Ah Kit: No, why didn’t you as a local member, help them get incorporated?
Mr BALDWIN: Is that an excuse? You put on the public record that that is why you will not fund this program into this financial year. You put that on the record because I am very sure that that lady, who you know very well, would be delighted to hear it.
Madam Speaker, and I will put these through you, because I know that they will want to raise an objection about the way I am directing my questions, and concerns directly to them. This is a unique situation. This is a unique program. This should be highlighted and hailed, by this government particularly, as a program that can be held up in the face of all other programs to help Aboriginal people overcome particular problems within their community, and they are not getting an answer. And I really do take umbrage that the office of the minister rings up this particular organisation and asks if it is a set up of mine, when this lady, in particular, the counsellor, trained and accredited, traditional owner in her own right, running this program, and very successfully for the past eight or nine months, is a constituent of mine and has every right to ring her local member to ask for some assistance in furthering her desires and her ambitions. Ambitions that she has fought for for over ten years, that include putting herself through accreditation as a counsellor, canvassing government over a long period of time to get government to understand that she had something quite unique and it was worth a go. I would like to see a commitment by the minister to give this particular program a go.
So there are two things here. There are two alcohol rehabilitations, particularly directed at Aboriginal people and Aboriginal families, on Aboriginal land, run predominantly by Aboriginal people, with church assistance in regard to the Five Mile, which is very appropriate and it has been very successful for over 20 years, that all of a sudden, within the last few weeks, have no certainty of their future. I think it is an indictment that it has even reached this point. If this minister thinks that she knows what is going on, then I would like to hear about it, and I would like some firm commitments. Some commitments to the future of what you espouse to be your role as far as Aboriginal issues go. It is time you spoke up, and put your name …
Mr Henderson: It is a whole new constituency you have discovered since you have been in opposition. It is amazing. A whole new constituency. A whole new constituency you have found - neglected Aboriginal people in health for 26 years.
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on the interjection. This is a government that pretends to have a social agenda. Well, I can tell you, it is a real agenda. This is the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development - when was it? last week in Katherine – who met with some business people there. I am not going to go into details, because this way something will never get done if I go into the details, because it is in my electorate. This minister met with some business people who raised an issue …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: Listen, listen, it is my electorate, where is my electorate?
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: You wouldn’t know. Florina Road! See how much he knows. Has not been outside Wanguri. Met with some business people; business people raised an issue about some infrastructure that needs doing. What did he say? The minister for industry and business said, ‘Unless it has a social outcome, we are not interested’.
Mr Henderson: No, I did not. In regard to what? In regard to what – put it into context.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay, well it is not my word. It is a business person’s word against his word and I do not have to defend it. I am just relaying the information.
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I question the member’s relevance to health in the statement.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I think the comments we have had have been very wide-ranging and I don’t think there is a point of order.
Mr BALDWIN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The minister for industries and business made an interjection and you know that it is normal practice to pick up on interjections.
And so, that is their social agenda. If there is no economic outcome, they are not interested. It has to have a social outcome. And this is directly relayed from some business people he met with a week ago.
Mr Henderson: You were at the lunch.
Mr BALDWIN: So, getting back to the issue. Yes, I was at lunch and I heard you say a number of things. But we will get into those a little bit later. I will save those ones.
The issue I have raised - and my colleague, the member for Nelson has raised - are very important issues, and they go to the core of what this government purports to stand for.
Mr Burke: The social agenda, the Aboriginal social agenda.
Mr BALDWIN: The social agenda, particularly for remote areas of …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, both of these areas are in my electorate which I have served for over eight years. I will defy anybody to stands up here and say that I have just discovered these things. I will take that on any day.
Mr Ah Kit: Tell us about protest at Port Keats about the bilingual education. Tell us about the protest at Wadeye.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay. Member for Arnhem, I will pick up on those objections. I am happy to do this all night. Let’s look at the time he went down to his electorate, seeing we are talking about electorate issues. He wants to raise it as his most important issue. And where was he on one of these important occasions? I think it was the Barunga Festival, wasn’t it? Where was he found, Madam Speaker? I go along to the Barunga Festival and I am standing there and they give apologies for Mr Ah Kit. ‘Oh, that’s funny’, I thought, ‘It was on my agenda that he was going to be here’. And where was he? Asleep under a tree. Got tired. Went to a wedding the night before, had to have a sleep on the way. Missed the whole exercise. So don’t talk to me about electorate issues. If the member for Arnhem wants to raise those things, I will take him on any day.
I will leave it there because I know I am upsetting them. But I would like the minister to place on the record tonight, because the people in the Daly electorate, both at the Five Mile and Dillinya, are waiting for succinct answers as to their futures, and the futures of all of the people who have needs in the service delivery of these unique facilities that have, in one case, a very long and successful record, and in another case, are innovating. They are the kinds of facilities and programs that should be at least tried and supported to see if they have the relevant outcomes that we are all looking for. I will leave it at that, Madam Speaker.
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Leader of the Opposition, that is a great contribution.
Madam Speaker, I just wanted to make some comments in regards to the member for Daly.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can I ask you to make your comments also relevant to the statement. It is getting late.
Mr AH KIT: It is in regards to the health. I am making a couple of comments in regard to my responsibilities as Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs. I have followed the Dillinya concerns and I interjected to the member for Daly about the situation of funding, or lack of funding, with Dillinya. I understand - and the minister can explain this - but they have not put in an application and they are not incorporated. Now, this is another one of your doings when you were in government, that you fund something just for the year and that Anglicare helped out, and that is fine. That is fine, Anglicare helped out. I have no problems in supporting alcohol rehabilitation programs that are working really well. But, we have a local member who understood from the very beginning that they needed to be incorporated, Anglicare helped out. In 12 months time they are still not incorporated, and it is not a business of this government to start funding unincorporated organisations.
The member for Daly is trying to say that I am against these projects. He is wrong, and he is trying to get it recorded in Hansard so he can send that off to pick up some brownie points at Dillinya and wherever else, because he certainly has the time to visit some of these smaller places he did not in the past. But the situation is one where he, for 12 months, ignored providing assistance to that particular community in terms of its incorporation, so that they could apply in their own right for recurrent funding and further funding. The problem rests with him as a lazy local member.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be able to respond to many of the strange things which have been brought up tonight in relation to this statement. I will start with the things which we have just been talking about. The member for Nelson and the member for Victoria River …
Mr Ah Kit: Daly.
Mrs AAGAARD: Daly. Sorry, my apologies. They both brought up the issue of the Five Mile alcohol and drug service. This service has a service agreement with my department. The department, as part of that service agreement, does a normal review. At the moment, there is a review going on of that service but there is no intention to withdraw funding. I have something here from my department that says: ‘It is not intended that the funding would be withdrawn. It is merely that there is a review on of the service’. So, any kind of reports to the extent that there was going to be a withdrawal of funding are very odd indeed and I do not know where they have come from, certainly not from my department.
In relation to Dillinya …
Mr Baldwin: Can you clarify and guarantee?
Mrs AAGAARD: That is a report from my department, Madam Speaker.
Mr Baldwin: No, you. You are the minister. Guarantee.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, I do not have - unlike the previous government, we are at arm’s length from the direct funding of non-government organisations. This fits in with the priorities of the department. The department is saying that there is no intention to withdraw funding.
With the second service, neither I, nor my department, has received any submission for funding. We do not just provide cheques just like this. We do not just write cheques and say, ‘Yes, I am sure you are a great service’. We do not do that on this side of the House. We actually wait for someone to send us a submission, and then it is considered by the department and then, in the normal state of priorities, is agreed to or not agreed to. What I am saying is, if this organisation wishes to receive funding, they need to do the normal thing which is to approach the department for funding.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Daly! It is very hard to hear the minister.
Mrs AAGAARD: The member for Nelson brought up issues in relation to Palmerston. I would just like to do a bit of backgrounding on the Palmerston so-called After Hours Medical Service. This was, in fact, described by my department as a trial. As part of this trial there was a review process. It was never considered to be a permanent service. It was always meant to be a trial with a review at the end of it.
Mr Henderson: In the lead-up to the election.
Mrs AAGAARD: Yes, it was introduced in the lead-up to the election.
Mr Wood: Where is the trial found in Hansard? I cannot find any record of a trial anywhere.
Mrs AAGAARD: My department has advised me that there was a trial. All documentation to me has indicated there was a trial and the review was part of the trial. Because I became the minister for health in the meantime, naturally the review came to me. The key finding of this was that the GPs who run the service - the GPs, not the government, not the department - said this was an unviable service; this service was not required. They did not want to continue the service. However, they said if the service was to continue it was going to cost around $900 000 to continue the service from the hours between 10 pm and 8 am. This is not a sustainable position for this government, given that there was actually no funding put in the budget by the previous government for this trial.
So that is just one issue that I would just like to deal with. I would also like to say that this service has been described as some kind of emergency service. This was never the case. This an ordinary GP service. People in emergency situations still need to go to the Royal Darwin Hospital. To go to a GP when you are in a serious situation puts your own life at risk. This is a very foolish thing to do. As part of the discontinuation of the trial at this medical centre, what we did was, we put in place extra shifts of the ambulance services. One of the significant problems in relation to health services in the Northern Territory, particularly in Darwin, Palmerston and the rural areas, is the poor ambulance services that we were left. One of our major commitments is to improve the ambulance services in these areas. So what we did immediately on finding out about this pathetic situation was we increased the shifts in the Darwin area so that in fact the Palmerston rural area ambulances were able to actually stay in the Palmerston rural area. They were not being continually called into Darwin. We have had a very good response from St John Ambulance on this, that, in fact, it has alleviated the problem significantly and there have been no reasons for ambulances to come into Darwin unnecessarily. I am happy to say that at the beginning of the next financial year these services will be further increased.
When we announced the discontinuation of this service we also talked about reviewing the whole area of services in the rural area which is currently happening. One of the things which I am very happy to announce tonight is that in the Humpty Doo area we will be establishing a voluntary ambulance service, similar to the one at Adelaide River and Batchelor, which will start on the first of July. In fact today, there have been discussions with various government organisations to locate a suitable government building for this service, possibly a school in the Humpty Doo area. When I know the exact details of this I will be happy to pass these on to the member for Nelson.
I would like to thank the member for Karama for many of the comments she made on the non-government sector. I especially share her concerns about the types of funding arrangements that have existed in the past. I know that she has a real commitment to the non-government sector, especially to disability issues and I am very grateful for her continued support.
The member for Port Darwin made a few very strange accusations about me. In particular, she made accusations in relation to my accessibility. I think this is very funny actually. There is this whole picture being painted of me as this inaccessible person. In fact, I have been told that I am the most accessible health minister that has ever existed in the Northern Territory. I have been to so many public functions and I never see any of you. The member for Drysdale is non-existent at any public functions of the non-government sector. I have seen him at one function in Palmerston - one function in Palmerston.
I have also seen several hundred people during this time. I must say that the other comment I have been getting from people is that the previous minister never went anywhere. I have actually been to organisations of the non-government sector where they have never had even so much as a contact with the minister’s office because even an advisor would not see them. I have visited the premises of these places and they are saying thank you very much for coming. I think there must have been some kind of emphasis on the much larger non-government sector organisations because there is a whole raft of smaller organisations which have never seen a minister for health in the whole time of the Northern Territory. I might add too, there are a few areas of the department, even in the Palmerston area, which have never seen the minister for health because I visited them last week.
I would like to make some comments on the hospice. There is a working party that is looking into this and I will make a report on that when I have further information to give to the House. It seemed to be fairly pointless to comment on every single thing that is happening in this very big portfolio. But certainly the hospice, the palliative care, is very important and there is a working party; we are expecting some quite considerable plans on that fairly soon.
There have been a lot of comments made tonight about the Alice Springs Hospital which I must say I find just completely amazing. The Alice Springs Hospital did not change at all on 18 August. I became the minister on 27 August and then in the third week of September, I was advised by my department of significant crisis situations in Alice Springs Hospital. I immediately endorsed an authorised review of the Alice Springs Hospital by a very senior health administrator, Mr John Mulligan, who is also the Vice-President of the Australian Health Care Council, I believe. A very, very senior person. He came to Alice Springs, he did a review and then I received the results of the review in October which we immediately began to implement and so, Madam Speaker, there is in fact a turn around already in the Alice Springs Hospital.
A number of the allegations made tonight are very sad indeed. Certainly things like nurses and nurse retention rates are very problematic. They are for all hospitals throughout Australia. But we have made a concerted effort as I noted this morning in my report to the House on how we were going to turn this around and there has already been a big increase in the numbers of nurses in the hospital. And, I expect there to be significant changes in the level of services in this hospital within this year.
The member for Barkly made particular comments in relation to haemodialysis. It is going to be a very significant thing for the people of the Barkly when this service is introduced. Also in terms of the whole mapping exercise on renal dialysis for the Northern Territory, we will for once have some idea of where we need to be putting services, instead of doing this strange ad hoc business where people keep writing in and saying: ‘We need something here, we need something there’. We need to have a plan of what is going to happen with renal services in the Northern Territory, and that is what we are doing.
I would like to pick up particularly on the comments by the member for Greatorex regarding itinerants in the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital. I am afraid these comments are completely untrue. There was apparently during the construction phase of the private wing of the hospital, one afternoon, one person wandered into the unfinished building and was escorted out by some staff.
Mr McAdam: It was an inspection.
Mrs AAGAARD: Yes, perhaps it was an inspection, member for Barkly. There have been no cases of itinerants living in the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital. In relation to the Alice Springs private wing, there have been a lot of very odd comments made on this as well. When this was first mooted, the previous government had a Memorandum of Understanding with the Sisters of Charity, and this fell through. This fell through because 15 beds is not a viable service for a private hospital. In the meantime, the former minister for health decided to put in expressions of interest for further service operators for this private wing of the hospital. I understand from my department that he personally approached three providers. These three providers were then asked to submit expressions of interest to tender for the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital. None of them submitted a tender, not even one. In fact, what I got back from my department was, that these people said, if the minister approached them personally, they expected something called a sweetener, an incentive for them to come here. But there wasn’t anything like that. So, there was one tenderer but the tenderer was not suitable and at this stage we do not have anyone to fill that particular contract.
However, I have asked my department to prepare a business analysis of what we might be able to do to attract a provider for the private wing of the hospital. But I would have to say that our key priority is getting the Alice Springs Hospital right before we start working on that. And although that will be a medium term plan, you would have to say the turning around of the Alice Springs Hospital is far more important.
As a general comment, I was very curious about the comments made about caucus meetings which are of course confidential meetings. I have been to every caucus meeting of the parliamentary Labor Party. You may be interested to know that when you are elected as a minister, you are actually elected by your caucus colleagues. That means that I have the support of my caucus colleagues, and there have been no conversations, as suggested by members opposite, that there have been problems in my portfolio. The problems that exist in my portfolio are totally because of the poor management by the CLP over the past few years.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
A few weeks ago, the Chief Minister and I were honoured to be involved in the Darwin premiere of the film Rabbit-Proof Fence along with senior members of Darwin’s stolen generation. It is an extraordinary film about a long episode in Australia’s history. I do not mind admitting that I was one of many people watching the film that night who was moved to tears. As well as being a story that has affected many indigenous Australians, it is also an intensely local one for the people of Darwin. This town was the site of both the Kahlin compound and the Retta Dixon home. Many Darwin Aboriginal families also have strong connections to Garden Point, Croker Island, the Pine Creek home, Emerald River and Roper River, not to mention the Bungalow and St Philips in Alice Springs.
It is a tragic history that has affected all indigenous Australians, but one that so many people seem incapable of listening to. These people, many of whom are very powerful in this nation, deny Australia’s past. They refuse to read the history books; they wish to censor reality. They say a picture tells a story of a thousand words. On that night, we saw a picture that tells the truth of thousands of lies. It is the true story of three amazingly brave girls who were stolen from their families in the Jigalong community and taken to the Moore River Native Settlement. It is the true story of them walking 2400 km home to their people. But there are some other stories of the film that are also stories of commitment to the truth.
The first story is that of Doris Pilkington Garimara, the author of Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence on which the film is based. Like her mother, whose story she tells, she was stolen and taken to Moore River and subsequently removed from her love and care. Before she became a writer, she was the first from the mission she lived in to enrol in nursing. What we saw that night is the passion of the artist and the artist’s desire that the truth be told.
The second story is of Tianna, Laura and Everlyn, the three young Aboriginal girls in the lead roles in Rabbit-Proof Fence. These girls had no experience of acting before; indeed I understand Everlyn had never even been to the movies. As young representatives of Aboriginal people, the three girls tell another truth: the capacity of our kids to achieve extraordinary things. In this case, as actors appearing alongside such other great Aboriginal actors as David Gulpilil, Ningali Lawford, Deborah Mailman and others, these girls demonstrated a talent of which we can all be enormously proud.
The third story is that of the film maker Phillip Noyce. Back in the days when he hung around the Film Makers Co-Operative in Sydney in the late 1960s, I doubt if he imagined he would one day shoot two road movies about Aboriginal people that would tell two different kinds of truth. The first, Back Roads, starred Gary Foley and was a bitter look at Australian racism. Rabbit-Proof Fence is no less about racism, but 30 years on gives us a story of hope and resistance rather than despair. And finally to the rest of the cast, crew and backers of Rabbit-Proof Fence, their collective commitment to the kinds of truth I have been talking about tonight shines through the work of all of them.
There has never been in the history of Australian film making an international hit film depicting Aboriginal people. It is as if the box office was a kind of terra nullius, a place where the depiction of the lives of our people are denied access. It makes you wonder what the value of truth is. Let us hope that Rabbit-Proof Fence changes that once and for all.
You will remember that one of the first moves by the Martin Labor government was to move a motion of apology in this Chamber to the stolen generations. On that day, I spoke of my mother’s experience of this terrible policy of former governments. Other Aboriginal members on this side of the House had other experiences they recounted to the Assembly. It was a day that was both sad and happy; sadness for the lives we commemorated, happiness for the fact that this parliament was finally acknowledging the history of the stolen generations.
At the premiere of Rabbit-Proof Fence, the Chief Minister remarked that it was a confronting film in that it opened wounds for those members of the stolen generation who saw it, as well as being an eye-opener for many in the rest of the community. She quite rightly said that we are here at ground zero in the cultural debate to which this film contributes. I wish I had thought of this way of describing it myself because it is an accurate way of looking at the whole issue.
Perhaps the hardest thing to get hold of in the context of the stolen generation history is that it is a history that is constructed of thousands of individual stories. It is a history that, even since the Human Rights Commission Stolen Generation Inquiry, is still largely untold. Outside of the indigenous families that it affected there is still great ignorance. The film Rabbit-Proof Fence tells three of those thousands of individual stories. I would urge all members of the Assembly who have not seen it to get along and watch it. I also urge other Territorians to go and see it.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to pay tribute tonight to some outstanding Territorians who have recently departed.
I refer first of all to Kurt Gerhardt Johannsen. Kurt Johannsen was truly a son of the Red Centre. He was born at Deep Well Station south of Alice Springs on 11 January 1915 and he lived the greater part of his life and did most of his work in the Centre, and most of what we remember about him are things that belong to the Centre. More than anything else, Kurt Johannsen was a man of an unshakeable faith in his own judgment and capabilities. His certainty of achieving his aims was backed with an inventiveness that drove him with an energy that often left other people flagging, but carried him on despite on many occasions an almost total lack of finance. Who in this day and age would fly to Darwin to bid for a very large truck without even enough money to get home? Scarce thought they were, there were others who, even then, were prepared to stand by him; others who saw his vision and recognised his inventiveness and did what they could to help.
On the other hand, Kurt was a trusting sort of person. He could never imagine, except when it was too late and he was left to pick up the pieces, that everyone else in the world did not have similar ideas about business principles and integrity as he did.
Kurt Johannsen’s enduring contribution to the Centre, more importantly to the transport industry and indeed to Australia, was to demonstrate by example the feasibility and potential of the road train. He did not invent road trains and he never claimed to have invented road trains, nor did he claim to invent the self-tracking trailer, but we all know of the huge work that he did and the effect he had on the road transport industry.
Whatever the case, Kurt certainly saw his destiny early in life. Sometime around 1958 his son, Lindsay, came across a number of drawings that Kurt had done in 1932, as far back as that, when he was 17 years of age. They were sketches of a road train, something we might now call conceptual drawings, and showed a prime mover hauling four ‘B’ trailers. Each trailer had a bogey-axle situated well forward of the rear connecting turntable, the resulting throw-out giving a respectable self-tracking capability. Each of the trailers had on it what appeared to be a cattle enclosure - the start of what we now know as the road train.
Kurt Johannsen went on to make his self-tracking road trains. They were constructed from left-over military bits and pieces - wheels from these welded on to home-made axles, springs from those doubled up to take the loading, short trays cut and joined to make them a useable length. Then he put bridge-section cattle crates on his trailers to make them strong enough for the job ahead. And his self-tracking road trains worked on some of the roughest, toughest tracks in Australia. And if the going was impossible, he simply used to blaze new tracks through the bush and across sandy creeks. Some of the tracks he cut subsequently became the main road for the area.
One day in 1956, he unexpectedly received in the mail a heavily laden envelope from the USA. In it were some rather remarkable documents. Diagrams and photographs of a giant self-tracking snow-train being constructed by LeTourneau for service in the Arctic. Now, here was Kurt’s proudest moment, that a giant like LeTourneau could even know, let alone appreciate, what Kurt, without publicity or fanfare, and in his own modest Central Australian backwater, was striving to achieve. It was all the more impressive when you realise that Kurt Johannsen did what he did without the benefit of any formal education. His schooling finished when he passed his grade 3 exams and had to start work to help support his family at the age of 15.
However, although we remember Kurt Johannsen very much for his road trains and his business of transporting cattle, it was not his only passion. He had been actively involved in mining, with his father, at first, and later on his own account. When the cattle transport business dwindled, he took crates off old Bertha - and might I add that old Bertha is now in the Road Transport Hall of Fame in Alice Springs - off Wog and the trailers and used the road trains to haul 60 tonne loads of copper ore from his mine at Jervois Range to Mt Isa, or to carry salt from his salt pan lease to the oil rigs at Mereenie.
There had been contract haulage too. Seven trailer road trains loaded with drums into Darwin, locomotives and rolling stock from the Top End railways into Alice, copper concentrates from Tennant Creek to the railway at Alice. Three trips a week the drivers had to do when the Peko mine was busy - Co-Ords big Fodens, the Baldock Leylands, and old Bertha. In those days, old Bertha had 11.6 diffs and could only do 40 km per hour.
In the mid-1960s, the cattle hauling business picked up again. The two road trains that had survived from the earlier days had their crates replaced and became fully employed. By this time, however, maintenance on the prime movers was becoming a problem as they were getting older, and so, too was Kurt. In 1967, he had a heart scare and his doctor told him to close the business and retire. But of course, his early retirement did not last too long. In the 1970s, he was mining tungsten north-east of Alice Springs in partnership with his son, Lindsay. It was a predictable arrangement. Lindsay had found a half decent prospect and Kurt had a yard full of mining and crushing machinery. Kurt retired a little more graciously after they sold the mine in 1978.
During the Second World War - and this is where Kurt Johannsen is remembered by a lot of people - fuel was severely limited, though coke-burning gas producers enabled some people to overcome this shortage. In Central Australia, wood was free and plentiful, so Kurt Johannsen applied his inventiveness to build a better gas producer for his Studebaker President utility, one that could burn wood instead of coke.
By the time he retired, he had a number of ideas on how he could refine the process and make it more efficient. He made himself a new one, a ‘clip-on’ unit to mount on the back of his big left hand drive Dodge station wagon, now also on display in the Road Transport Hall of Fame. To complement this, Kurt designed a two double bedroom plus living area fold away camper to go on its roof. The idea was to go touring around Australia with Daphne Palmer, his partner.
After starting the car on petrol, they would set off down the road, and a few kilometres later, when the gas producer came up to speed, he would shift his foot across to the other accelerator pedal and run the car on wood gas, the carbon monoxide. Petrol costs for a 1000 km trips were often less than $10. In what was becoming an enduring relationship, he and Daphne collaborated on writing his book, A Son of the Red Centre. When the publishers rejected it, Kurt went ahead and published it himself, then used their touring to promote the book. The publishers must be kicking themselves, because in Australia, they often regard 5000 copies to be a best seller. To date, Kurt’s book has sold something in the order of 18 000 copies.
While his physical energy was starting to diminish, his inventive, mental process was getting into overdrive. During this time, his main project was an automatic emergency braking system that would bring a runaway truck, such as those we often see running down hills, to a standstill safely, before the situation got out of control. Later he would spend more time on the processes of fuel efficiency.
Kurt Johannsen was an inventor. If he had been born today and lived in this day and age, I cannot imaging the type of things he would come up with, but the inventions that he produced in the early days were quite remarkable. It is just hard to imagine someone coming up with the ideas he had.
Kurt’s first wife was Kathleen Rowell, and they had three children, Lindsay, David and Peter. David still lives in Alice Springs and runs Mitre 10, Peter lives in Adelaide and Lindsay is out bush on his father’s mining leases at Jervois Range. Kathleen and Kurt separated and some time later he married Daphne Hillam. Following several happy years together, they too went their different ways and had no children. But his third wife - so Kurt was certainly a man of character - was Elsie Dixon Collins. They had two children, Paula, his only daughter, and Kurt Junior. Paula lives in Adelaide and Kurt Junior lives in Alice Springs. All the children are happily married, and Kurt, of course, had lots of grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Unfortunately, Kurt’s stamina did begin to fade, and it was during this latter part of his life he developed troubles with his waterworks, a blockage of some sort - and this just is typical of the man. The doctors were not too sure of what the problem was, and decided that in the fullness of time they might do some exploratory surgery. ‘Fullness’ was the operative word here; Kurt was getting desperate. One day when Daphne was out shopping, he took some plastic tube from his oxygen supply equipment, and in a fashion typical of the man, sort of fixed things up for himself. By the time Daphne returned from her shopping, Kurt was sitting on the little patio out the back looking very pleased with himself, and feeling a great deal more comfortable. This led to a certain amount of notoriety when he was admitted to Daws Road Repatriation Hospital. The doctors wanted to see his apparatus and what he had actually done to cure his problem.
Kurt passed away on Tuesday morning, 22 January, while he was having breakfast. He was 87. His going was quick and free of pain, for which his family are eternally grateful, and his beloved Daphne was by his side.
I extend my condolences to his four sons, Peter, Lindsay, David, and Kurt, and Paula, his daughter, their families, their many grandchildren, great grandchildren and also his three sisters, Mona Byrnes, Trudi Hayes and Myrtle Noske, who all now reside in Alice Springs. Kurt Johannsen was a true Territorian and an outstanding Centralian.
I also pay tribute to Edward (Ted) - or as he was known - ‘Snooky’ Hampton, who passed away on 18 December 2001. Many of us know Ted Hampton. He devoted so much time to his family, his seven children, 18 grandchildren and, of course, to his wife, Fay, before she passed away. Ted was born the 9th son of Tim and Sara Hampton in 1938, at Garden Station. From a young age, he attended St Francis House, based in Semaphore in South Australia, where he established many life long friendships. As a young man, he loved all sorts of sports - basketball, darts, and he loved fishing most of all, and used to love to brag of the big ones that got away, and of the little ones he brought home.
To his family, he was an adventurer who loved Central Australia, and knew it like the back of his hand. He had the ability to see the humorous side of things and always had a tale to tell. He married a local ex-St Mary’s girl and together they supported each other in many of Ted’s ventures. He worked in many jobs in the area. He started work as an apprentice in carpentry; he went on to work as a surveyor for the Lands and Survey Department; he worked for the CES for 12 years; and then worked to establish the Aboriginal Health Worker Training Unit. His vision became very much for Aboriginal people to become economically independent.
Ted went to Canada to represent Aboriginal business interests at the first World Indigenous Business Congress. He stood for two Northern Territory Legislative Assembly elections; had been a Justice of the Peace for 20 years and served on many Aboriginal organisations, both locally and in South Australia. He was instrumental in the publishing of the South Australian book, Survival in Our Own Land; his brother, Ken, was one of the authors. He went on to establish Aboriginal Literature Development Assistance Association, and in 2000 he was named Regional Centralian of the Year for his contribution to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal organisations over the past 20 years. His last employment position he held was as a case worker with the stolen generations.
He was also awarded a grant under the Senior Territorians program, and he purchased a computer through Batchelor College and spent many hours researching and writing his and his wife’s genealogies and his biography. He was a gifted poet and has left behind many beautiful poems for his family to treasure.
Ted Hampton was a father, grandfather, brother friend and husband. He has left an enormous gap in his family. I extend my condolences to all his children and their family.
Very briefly, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to advise members of the House of the passing of David Underhill. I know some of the members will remember David as the sessional Hansard sub-editor from 1995 until his rather serious illness in 2001. He had a long and distinguished career in journalism, both in Australia and overseas, and brought with him a great deal of editorial expertise which he used, might I add, to enhance the standard of our Parliamentary Record. Over a period of time he established a close working relationship with many of the officers of the Legislative Assembly.
While fighting the illness to which he finally succumbed, he kept in close contact with the department and was, from time to time, able to do editing on a consultancy basis. David is survived by his two children. He always enjoyed himself. You might remember him at the end-of-year functions. He was a connoisseur of Scotch whiskey, established a reputation as raconteur, he had a wealth of entertaining anecdotes and humorous stories about members’ contributions to debate in this House. He will be fondly remembered by former members and officers of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, throughout the Territory there are many examples of people contributing unselfishly to their communities, the work involved that is done in the background. The wider community is not aware of their efforts. This evening I would like to pay tribute to some of these people, particularly those involved in the Australian Street Circuit Go-Kart Grand Prix held annually in Tennant Creek. This event is of great importance to Tennant Creek, attracting many of the best drivers in Australia and from overseas. It has developed into a major tourism drawcard, providing the community with economic benefits. With an 11-year history, the Grand Prix is the longest standing event of its kind in Australia and is now recognised as the premium street circuit Go-Karting event in the country.
Building up the event to this level is the result of the tremendous work put in, year after year, by a very dedicated group of people to whom I would now like to pay tribute.
Firstly, I pay tribute to Richard Dodd of Prospect Business Machines and Tony and June Civitarese of T and J Contractors. Every year, these local business people have contributed time and dollars to all aspects of the Grand Prix. It is impossible to hold such events as this without efforts of people like Richard, Tony and June, and I thank them for their dedication and contributions to Tennant Creek and, indeed, the Barkly.
I pay tribute to Murray Henderson of Mozza Constructions. Each year, Murray embarks on a program to ensure that the track preparation, maintenance and safety is above board and I pay tribute to Murray. I also pay tribute to Jack Gannon of Barkly Engineering and Welding. Jack is President of the Tennant Creek Go-Kart Club and always gives the Grand Prix his full support, and provides whatever assistance he can.
Thanks to Peter Davenport of Tennant Security Services and Barry Harker of Tennant Creek Town Council. Peter and Barry have provided excellent commentary each year. Peter has also been involved with events run each year in association with the Grand Prix such as Miss Grand Prix. Barry works each year on the grid coordinating race starts. Communications for the event is being provided by Andy Sutherland of Territory Communications. Congratulations to Andy on a job consistently well done.
I would now like to pay a special tribute to the team of over 60 volunteers who participate each year in making this event what it is. Without these unsung heroes, there would be no event. Of the many drivers involved in the event, I pay tribute to the local driver Tarmo Koivumaki of T and J Mechanical Repairs. As well as participating in the event himself, Tarmo works tirelessly on behalf of all drivers towards the smooth running of the event. An event such as the Grand Prix always needs someone to take care of the administrative details. Clarissa Burgen of ATSIC has taken on this task over the past few years and I thank Clarissa for her efforts and, indeed, ATSIC for their efforts in a role that can not go unrecognised. Due to impending motherhood, Clarissa cannot be involved in this year’s Grand Prix, and I take this opportunity on behalf of everyone in Tennant Creek to wish her well for the future.
Another person I pay tribute to is Skimbo Turnbull of Tennant Creek Security. Skimbo has done a tremendous job in ensuring an incident-free event, both the races and associated social events. Finally, with respect to past events, I recognise the contribution made by Arthur Hill, who used to work for PAWA, and members of the Tennant Creek Town Council. These organisations consistently provide assistance to facilitate the holding of this event. I also thank NT Major Events for their generous funding and the Tennant Creek Hotel for being the second major sponsor.
I also thank people who have been involved in getting the event organised this year. An enormous amount of work has been involved in planning, organising, and securing funding. To all members of the committee: Michael Dougall and Richard Pare, Clarissa Burgen, Richard Dodd, Hayley Dodd, Bev Kozlowski, Ian Gray, Tony Civitarese, Bob Torrilla, Paul Sawyer, Arthur Hill, Glen Bennett, Nigel Skelton, Peter Davenport, Lisa Marshall and Julie Bright, I give my sincere thanks for your efforts. I pay special tribute to Michael Dougall, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tennant Creek Town Council, who has worked as a Committee Chairman; to Ian Gray for taking on the role of Event Manager and Treasurer; Paul Sawyer, from my office, has also been assisting in a secretarial capacity; and Hayley Dodd for assuming the administrative role left by Clarissa Burgen.
Whilst specifically mentioning these people, all the members of the committee have taken on various subcommittee roles. I thank them all and wish them all the best in the heavy workload ahead of them. With only possibly ten weeks to go until the event, they are faced with a daunting task, but based on previous years, I am confident that this year will prove to be the best yet.
I would like to sincerely thank the management and directors of Tennant Creek Memorial Club for agreeing to act as the second major sponsor of this year’s event. In particular, Rob Bright deserves a special thanks. Finally, to the Chief Minister, her Chief of Staff, Dennis Bree and Charlie Phillips, my sincere thanks. You should be accorded a special recognition for the tremendous amount of work that you have all put in over the last few weeks in making funds available to ensure that the Grand Prix continues. Thanks also to Paul Cattermole of NT Major Events for his support.
I have addressed this issue tonight because it is another example of the unselfish inspirational attitude of people in Tennant Creek, who take on amazing amounts of work for no other reason other than to benefit their community and their Territory. I applaud them all.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to place on the record something that I feel may be of interest to the government. From time to time, I go through my file to check up on promises that were made to the good folk in the Palmerston area during the election. Those promises are alive and well, and there is an expectation of their fulfilment and some response to them. Rather than just wait for a response, I am at work to perhaps construct something that may be of interest to the Labor government in being able to fulfil one of their very important promises and one that would perhaps, under normal circumstances, be a little difficult to deliver.
In the heat of the moment, in the heat of the battle of the campaign, promised $2m to the Palmerston Magpies Football Club. At the time, it may have seemed like a good idea but it caused other codes in Palmerston, and in the northern suburbs, to wonder why would one particular club receive that amount of funding. I never made such a promise and, really, it was a bit of a concern for other codes, albeit as a committee member of the Palmerston Magpies, privately I think it is okay. However, I think there are some challenges there particularly for clubs in Palmerston like the Raiders who do not have a home ground; a very similar situation but did not have the same profile as the Magpies.
What I would suggest is an arrangement that is on foot at the moment where a relationship has been formed between the Palmerston Magpies Football Club and the Northern Territory University Palmerston Campus. As members would probably be fully aware, the Palmerston Campus of the Northern Territory University has two very good playing fields currently not utilised. They would be an ideal location for the Palmerston Magpies Football Club and other homeless codes in Palmerston such as the Palmerston Raiders. I have spoken to the Northern Territory University and they are very interested to develop a proposal further.
In the interests of the promise which is still on the books – the $2m - I would suggest a way of acquitting this in a way that may be less painful for the Territory government would be to approach the Northern Territory University to find a way to establish facilities on these grounds which would then be of beneficial use to the Palmerston Magpies Football Club and the Palmerston Raiders. That way we are assisting the university and raising their profile in the community plus providing very important facilities for Palmerston sporting codes which are servicing the greater need of developing young talent in Palmerston, particularly young lads. I would also add these comments in greater detail in writing but I take this opportunity to place it on the Parliamentary Record.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to express my gratitude to the staff of Karama Public Library for their hard work. Since becoming the member for Karama, it has been a pleasure working with the Northern Territory Public Library Service to ensure the ongoing health and future of Karama Public Library. In that regard, I have had it confirmed that lease renewal is moving ahead and that is great news for the staff of the library. That library has not been renovated in something like ten years and is well in need of a lick of paint and some new carpet.
I attended a meeting of the library assistants and technicians of the Top End. I was their key note speaker at their annual Christmas function on 25 November last year. At this gathering I was able to hear of the key concerns confronting the Northern Territory Library Service and discuss innovative models that are occurring elsewhere in Australia that librarians are very keen on up here. The Tasmanian Library Service was the one pointed out to me as being the best practice model of library services in Australia. It is a subject that I have had subsequent discussions about at ministerial level and ministerial officer level.
What really brought home to me the popularity of the Karama Public Library Service was in April last year when I attended the 10th birthday celebrations of the Karama Public Library. I note that the late Lord Mayor, George Brown, officiated at that function. There were literally hundreds of my constituents packing out the library on that occasion. Parents and children, and grandparents, all there to express their absolute admiration of the service that the local public library provides to our community. The library offers a great selection of novels, biographies, videos, e-mail and web surfing. There are books and magazines in languages other than English; these include Vietnamese, Chinese and Indonesian.
In the month of October last year, 6010 people visited the library over the 27 days that library was open. The library received 1205 inquiries from complex to simple subject matters and held 13 special event programs which were attended by 381 people. It recorded 4608 loans which covered books, periodicals, CDs, DVDs, CD-ROMs, videos, toys and games. Children are well catered for at Karama Public Library with children’s story books. They have pre-school story time every Tuesday and Thursday at 10 am and bed time stories every second Thursday from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm. It may not come as much of a surprise to most of you that the most popular children’s book on loan is Harry Potter. The library has wheelchair access, enhanced access computer terminals, a community notice board, large print books and spoken word tapes.
This library is one of four public library services that are inter-woven with administrative support provided at Casuarina Public Library. There are no joining fees and lending and information services are free. I congratulate the chief librarian, Viki Schmielewski for her great leadership at, and enthusiasm for, Karama Public Library. I congratulate the two full time and three part time staff and day-to-day specialist staff at the library for the terrific service they are providing there. I note that the Karama Public Library has just implemented a Literacy Week Program that is operating in our community. Its aim and intention is to promote learning and reading within our community. As the local member, I am incredibly proud of the work that the library staff do, of the accessibility to the community of the library and I certainly pledge as a local member, to pursue the improvement and enhancement of our library service.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to discuss a number of matters in the area of women’s issues or women’s policy. Firstly, I will begin with the axing last week, announced by the Territory’s first woman Chief Minister, of the Business Women’s Consultative Council, the BWCC. Members will recall that I foreshadowed that times ahead may be tough for a variety of women’s organisations when, in November last year, I highlighted that $4.6m was slashed from the Chief Minister’s departmental budget.
As a former convenor of the Women’s Advisory Council, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware of the role the BWCC had to and for government. What the abolition of the BWCC means for women around the Territory is that women in business will no longer have a direct link with government. The BWCC was established over many years by the former CLP government and I am very proud of the former government’s achievements in a number of women’s areas. Some think it is ironic that a CLP government was cutting edge in some of its initiatives. It sits happily with me and, indeed, I am very proud of the initiatives that former governments announced over a number of years. The fact that this new government comes in and systematically dismantles some very good initiatives is distressing not only to me but to a number of women who have contacted me over the past few days.
In light of the Chief Minister’s disregard for her own advisory group on women in business, women in the Territory have every reason to think that the Chief Minister is arrogant in assuming that she does not need the advice of the BWCC. That is a sad indictment on this Chief Minster.
To happier matters, I also want to discuss the Women’s Advisory Council’s Alicia Johnson Memorial Lecture. As members are no doubt aware, this lecture series commenced in 1991 and was named to honour a young woman, Alicia Johnson. Alicia worked with the Australian Legal Aid Office, as it was then, and later at the Northern Territory University. She was a member of the Domestic Violence Task Force, a representative on the NT Law Reform Committee and a member of the Family Planning Association. She was committed to working for and with disadvantaged youth and women and in particular women who were the victims of sexual assaults. This lecture series was created to remember Alicia and when the last lecture was delivered by Maxine McKew, it was the 11th in the series. Most years, Alicia’s family and in particular her parents, Warren and Gillian Johnson travelled to Darwin from Melbourne to be in attendance at the lecture. The 10th anniversary lecture was a particularly moving occasion for them and indeed most of those present, including myself, on that remarkable night. Dr Jocelyn Scutt was the guest lecturer.
The quality of this lecture series has been outstanding on any analysis, and guest lecturers over the years have included to name but a few, Justice Elizabeth Evatt, Professor Hilary Charlesworth, Dr Jocelyn Scutt and the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Alasdair Nicholson. In anyone’s language and by any measure, this series has been exceptional in terms of the quality of the guest lecturers, the subject matter and the audience attracted to each lecture which has continued to grow over the years. The lectures have promoted awareness of legal, social and human rights amongst the wider community, as well as commemorating the life of Alicia Johnston. It was something that the Women’s Advisory Council did well and was always supported by the former government, a fact of which I am very proud.
Having outlined something of the lecture’s history, words, of course, could barely express my shock and outrage when I heard of the Women’s Advisory Council’s decision to dispense with the lecture series. In response to information I received, I wrote to the Chief Minister in November of last year and asked her to do whatever she could to rescue the lecture series and I expressed the view that the Women’s Advisory Council’s decision was bizarre and extraordinary. I also undertook in my letter to the Chief Minister to refrain from making any public announcement whilst she would have the time to see what she could do to remedy the situation. Unfortunately, I did not hear from the Chief Minister for some time, but before I did, I received a number of e-mails predominantly from women members of the Labor Party who had, it seemed, also discovered the council’s decision. Authors of the e-mails were strident in their support of the lecture series, and essentially undertook, as I understood it, to do whatever they could to ensure that the lecture series continued.
A commitment was subsequently given by the Chief Minister that ensured that the future of this lecture series is secure. I would like to thank all of the women who sent me those e-mails, and I thank very sincerely the Chief Minister for her government’s commitment. It is with some pride that I can indicate that the opposition provides the same commitment in the event that we return to government after the next election. This is an important indication because it means that both political parties in the Northern Territory now agree that this outstanding lecture series will continue whichever party is in government, hence its future is guaranteed. The fact that this has bipartisan agreement is something of a victory for all of those, including myself, who have been very strong supporters of this outstanding and important lecture series.
It is in the context of these circumstances that I raise the possibility of a review of the Women’s Advisory Council which, I understand, the Chief Minister indicated last week is likely to occur. I should say that given the change of government and given that it does have a propensity and, indeed, an entitlement to review all of the former government’s programs, I fully expected that the council would be on the government’s review or reform agenda. I accept that in light of the change of government, it is probably timely to review the Women’s Advisory Council.
However, by review I do not mean axing, or abolishing, or dismissing. I would hope that given that this government does now plan to, as I understand it, review the council, it would do so with a view to improving, refining or developing. In order to do this, it should widely consult. At this point, of course, it cannot go unmentioned that in this Chamber there are two members who have had extensive experience with the council. Specifically, the member for Port Darwin was the convenor of the council from 1994 to 1996; I was a member of the council from 1997 to 1999, and convenor from 1999 to 2001. We clearly have experience with the council in a very real way, and obviously I think both have an interest in ensuring that any review brings about positive changes and ones that advance the interests of women in the Northern Territory. I note that in contrast, on the other side of the House, it has no member, let alone a former convenor of the council. This is not a criticism. It is simply a statement of fact. The point I make is that given our experience and our interest in this area, I ask that if and when the council is reviewed by this government, that the member for Port Darwin and I be invited to assist with that review and, at the very least, we should be consulted.
Given the Chief Minister’s assurance that she would consult Territorians about a number of issues, we ask that we be consulted on the basis that despite sitting on this side of the House, we are also Territorians and have a very obvious interest and experience in this area. For my own part, it is, I think, fairly well known by women in the ALP, some of whom I like and respect, others of whom are my friends, that I have a strong interest in women’s issues and am not in the business of politicising them. I am ready, willing and able to assist in such a review.
Unless government accepts the need for advice from people like the member for Port Darwin and me, there is a risk that a review will not or cannot be complete and indeed runs a greater risk of being seen as one-sided and ultimately not embraced by all Territory women. If the review is political and ill-informed, then women who are not ALP supporters are unlikely to benefit from it or at least unlikely to support it. That, in my view, is simply a risk not worth taking.
If the Chief Minister and this government is serious about working on women’s issues, and advancing the status of Territory women, and maintaining a Women’s Advisory Council - a concept I strongly support - then it would be practically and politically unwise not to draw upon the resources that already exist. Social policy, specifically women’s policy, is not owned by the Labor Party or indeed any political party. Both parties have much to contribute to this area, and I suspect that there are shared views on a number of issues if not most.
I propose, therefore, that in the event that if and when there is a review of the Women’s Advisory Council, that it be a bipartisan review involving the women in this Chamber as well as some former members of council from both political parties. It could take a number of forms, formal or perhaps even informal initially, but it must be bipartisan and it must draw on the resources that so obviously exist.
I sincerely invite the Chief Minister to take up my request. Failure to do so would, in my view, indicate astonishing arrogance and a propensity to cater for the interests of some and not all Territory women.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, on Saturday, 16 February 2002, it was my pleasure to present, on behalf of this government and the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Kon Vatskalis, a cheque for $2000 to the Tamil Society of the Northern Territory. I presented this cheque to the Tamil Society President, Mr Selvaratnam and Vice-President, Mrs Anita Ramnath, at the Casuarina Cinemas that Saturday afternoon in front of 50 or 60 members of the Tamil Society.
The Tamil Society of the Northern Territory was established to promote knowledge and understanding of Tamil art and culture and to provide cultural, social, sporting and recreational activities for members and others who want to join in. Other objectives of the Tamil Society include fostering and promoting the study and use of the Tamil language, to establish and manage a resource centre with Tamil language books, periodicals, films; to provide counselling and assistance for members; and to encourage social activity. One of these social activities is a screening of Tamil language movies. The cheque was to assist the Tamil Society to screen a series of Tamil movies. The first of those movies was screened that Saturday afternoon at the Casuarina Cinemas, and it was terrific to see families, grandparents, children, people of all ages, coming together in such a happy atmosphere to enjoy a Saturday afternoon at the movies together. I even saw a school friend and play mate of my daughter and her family at the screening. Our kids are both in the same class and their teacher is Mrs Katerina Vlamos. I don’t know whether Mrs Vlamos was born in Greece or if her parents or grandparents were the first to migrate to the Territory. I don’t know if my daughter’s friend, Vaanathy, or her parents were born in Australia or migrated. I do know that Vaanathy and her teacher are proud of their heritage, are proud of their cultures, and freely and happily share their culture with all comers, no matter what continent or island from which their family sprung.
To me, multiculturalism is not just a word; it is an important component of the society I believe in, the type of society my family and I want to live in for all time. The Martin Labor government is pleased to provide financial support to the Territory’s ethnic organisations like the Tamil Society because such events are vital reminders to Territorians like our Tamil community of their unique cultural heritage, and what an amazing and rich cultural heritage it is. I was happy to present the cheque on behalf of the minister, Kon Vatskalis, because this government understands that in a multicultural society like ours, it is important to let all people celebrate their own cultural heritage and creativity. We are happy to support the Tamil Society to screen these movies because we understand that means a great deal to these members of our beautiful Northern Territory community to be able to see films in their first language, or in the first language of their parents.
I stayed and watched some of the movie before leaving for my next engagement; it was a kung fu comedy. I could not understand a word that was said, but I could understand the sense of community, of shared happiness in that room, and I was happy that a small financial support from this government was helping them to make this happen.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, this year, the Chinese New Year started on 12 February. For the following 15 days, Chinese people will celebrate with traditional lion and dragon dancers, family gatherings and reunions, an offering of hong baos, or red packets containing money by elders to the young, among relatives. Tomorrow is the last day of the celebrations and in many countries where the festival is celebrated in full tradition, it is the night for a lantern parade.
Preparations tend to begin a month from the date of the Chinese New Year, when people start buying presents, decorations, food and clothing. A huge clean up gets under way days before the New Year, when Chinese houses are cleaned from top to bottom to sweep away any traces of bad luck, and doors and window panes are given a new coat of paint, usually red. The doors and windows are then decorated with paper cups and couplets with themes such as happiness, wealth and longevity printed on them. The eve of the New Year is perhaps the most exciting part of the event, as anticipation creeps in. Here, traditions and rituals are very carefully observed in everything from food to clothing. Dinner is usually a feast of seafood and dumplings, signifying good wishes. Delicacies include prawns, for liveliness and happiness; dried oysters, for all things good; raw fish; salad, to bring good luck and prosperity; angel hair, an edible hair-like seaweed, to bring prosperity; and dumplings in boiled water, signifying the long lost good wish for a family. It is usual to wear something red, as this colour is meant to ward off evil spirits. Black and white are out, as these are associated with mourning.
After dinner, the families sit up for the night playing cards, board games or watching TV programs dedicated to the occasion. At midnight, the sky is lit up by fireworks. On the day itself, an ancient custom called hong baos, or red packets, are given. This involves married couples giving children and unmarried adults money in red envelopes. The family then begins to say greetings from door to door, first to their relatives, and then their neighbours. The end of New Year is marked by the festival of lanterns, as I said, which is a celebration of singing, dancing and lantern shows.
For us, tomorrow is when the Chung Wah Society Lion dance will bless this Chamber, in a tradition that has been observed for four years. For the past two weeks, the Chinese in the Territory have also celebrated the New Year, starting with the Hakka Association’s Chinese New Year dinner dance at the Cypriot Hall, followed by the Chung Wah Society banquet last weekend. As usual, the banquets were both well attended by Darwinians, new and old.
For the fifth year in succession, the Chung Wah Lion Dance Troupe has gone to Alice Springs to lead in celebrations for the Chinese New Year. We blessed the stalls at the market in the mall on Sunday. Over 55 business houses and homes were blessed in Alice Springs, as well as the Alice Springs Town Council Chambers. As one alderman put it: ‘We surely need the blessing right now’.
Let’s begin with the origins of Chinese lunar calendar which is the longest chronological record in history and dates from 2637BC when it was introduced by the emperor of the day. Some will already know that there are 12 different animals represented under the calender and, in ranking order, they are the Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Goat, Monkey, Rooster, Dog and Pig. Legend says that this is the order in which these animals arrived after Lord Buddha summoned all the animals in his kingdom to assemble before him before he departed from earth. Buddha honoured those 12 by naming a year after each of them. Each year has five parts, or elements, which are interlinked, these being water, metal, wood, fire and earth. So a complete lunar calendar cycle takes 60 years to complete.
It is said that the animal ruling your birth year exercises a profound influence on your life, so since this is the year of the Water, or Black Horse, let me give you some background on the Horse. The Horse is born under the signs of elegance and ardour, according to the book, Your Chinese Horoscope, 2002 by Neil Somerville. He adds:
He loves meeting people, and likes attending parties and other large social gatherings. The Horse is a
lively character and enjoys being the centre of attention. He has considerable leadership qualities, and is
much admired for his honest and straightforward manner. He is an eloquent and persuasive speaker and
has a great love of discussion and debate. He has also a particularly agile mind, and can assimilate facts
remarkably quickly. This is the year of the Water Horse. He has a friendly nature, a good sense of humour,
he is astute in business matters, and quick to take advantage of any opportunities that arise. He does,
however, have a tendency to get easily distracted, and can change his interest, and indeed his mind, rather
frequently, and this can sometimes work to his detriment.
If we work through the rationale of the Chinese astrology, the Horse is imbued mainly with fire and earth. In fact, the Horse is the strongest fire element among the 12 animals. But this is the year of the Water Horse, so water cannot extinguish fire all the time. Both elements of earth and fire, of the Horse, will consume water, so there will be conflict in this year between water and fire and disputes and arguments will always be there.
Let me now come to describe in greater detail about this year of the Horse. Shelley Woo, in her Chinese Astrology, wrote:
Horse years are notorious historical turning points, turbulent, untamed and chaotic. Every 12 years the
Horse comes around asking its question, ‘Are you awake?’ The Yang force is at its peak during Horse
years, requiring action and movement.
Of the five elements I mentioned, the Horse is accompanied predominantly by fire. This can bring to boil the
water element of 2002, which can flare up when least expected. Rigour and severity are also chronicled
with unusual excesses befalling governing forces. The Horse governs a year where money flows too freely
through the fingers, and where savings accounts dwindle. Travel, voyages and changes occur in Horse years,
when most of us would prefer to be anywhere but home. This year may be polarised by a manic depressive air
of enthusiasm followed by self doubt.
Horse years demand independence and freedom, despite the cost, a decisive year, when many will strike out on
their own. Impatient and talkative, horses play offence in life, and in 2002 it will be an enterprising year when
entrepreneurial efforts and small businesses can flourish. Romantic infatuation is the name of the game this year,
as the Horse falls very easily in and out of love. A narcissistic and self centred year where even the most self
effacing personalities think of themselves first. Creative lending, money matters and intense competition take the
spotlight. Ceaseless motion, decisiveness and control flavour this active year. A spirited, fiery heedless time to
move forward and to advance causes. The pulse of 2002 is fast and wildly variable.
Shelley Woo advises us to think and reflect, look before you leap in 2002, seek a healthy balance between deliberation and action, and avoid excessive physical or emotional escapades.
For those of you who believe in Feng Shui for this year, the eastern area of your house is an unlucky area in 2002. You are advised not to have any home improvements in this direction. The southern area is not a lucky area either. Do not let weak or sick family members live in a bedroom in this direction. The northern area won’t generate the career and money luck. The western area, however, is an auspicious area and gives people career and money luck in 2002. The south western area can make people smarter, thus a good area for a study, and may bring you career or money luck.
The last 14 days celebrations have occurred across the Territory, bringing Chinese culture to one and all. In Alice Springs we had great celebrations around the area and we hope that we will have many more of these to come. Tomorrow, I wish you all a happy Chinese New Year, the last day of the 15 days of celebration, and we will see the lion coming to bless this Chamber.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, on 5 December 2001, I hosted a Christmas party for the Wagaman Residents Committee. They have been very active during the year in combatting antisocial behaviour in the Wagaman area, particularly laneways at the bottom of Amsterdam Circuit. The laneways have been temporarily closed by the council on a trial basis for some time, pending a forthcoming Local Government Act Regulations which will enable the council to legally temporarily lanes close lanes and laneways, particularly in the face of antisocial behaviour. I commend Minister Vatskalis for expediting those regulation changes to the Local Government Act. I know that the residents committee is also very grateful for that action.
At the end of December, I was approached by Tim Garner of Moil, seeking support for participating in the School Sports Australia Primary School Boys Cricket Exchange in Adelaide from 11 to 20 January. I had no hesitation in offering support as I was assured that Tim, who just turned 13, is very dedicated towards his cricket and works very hard with training and skills development. Tim reported back to me in January. He had a wonderful time in Adelaide during the exchange and had gained much valuable experience. The NT team won one cricket match, the first in three years, and I congratulate Tim on his dedication to his chosen sport.
On 10 December, I also held another Christmas party in my electorate office, which was well attended by residents and friends who took the opportunity to meet each other, discuss local issues and imbibe some Christmas cheer.
On 11 December, I had the privilege of being asked to assist in the distribution of awards at the Stage 1 presentation event at Casuarina Senior College, which lies within the Johnston electorate. I continue to be most impressed by both students and staff at Casuarina Senior College, and wish them all the best during this coming school year. Results from students graduating were most impressive with Iyngaranathan Selvaratnam achieving an outstanding aggregate TER of 99.35.
Whilst mentioning high achievers, I recently attended the Northern Territory Board of Studies award presentation where the Top Twenty 2001 final year students were honoured. It was a great ceremony, and my sincere congratulations go to these students, which also included nine students from the Casuarina Senior College. I would like again to mention Iyngaranathan Selvaratnam, along with Elaine Loh, Sarah Sharples, Louisa Cowie, Phillipa Howard, Melissa James, Roger Cranswick, Michael Hanlin and Gavin McKinnon, and wish them all the best in their future studies.
The Board of Studies also recognised John Bruyn, Christopher Noble and Alan Rigby of Casuarina Senior College, who received the DCIS Information Technology Awards. At the awards, the Chief Minister also recognised April Phillips of Casuarina Senior College, by awarding her the most outstanding Stage 2 NTCE Indigenous Student of 2001. Congratulations to April, and I wish her every success in the future.
We spoke this morning about George Brown, and I believe his spirit was alive and well at the flag raising and citizenship ceremony at Marrarra on Australia Day. It was great to see over 50 new citizens take the pledge. Quite a number of them were known to me and a some live within the electorate. It was also a pleasure to watch young Territorians receive Australia Day Awards, including Elaine Loh of Casuarina Senior College, Jessica Smith of Wagaman Primary School, Keisha Tinley of Jingili Primary School and Visalini Vinu of Alawa Primary School, awarded the 2002 Student Citizen’s Award, and Melissa James of Casuarina Senior College, awarded the Australia Day Council Australian History Award.
The beginning of February saw school commence for semester 1, and I had the pleasure of meeting with all school principals of the four schools in my electorate. Changes in staffing meant seeing new faces, as well as familiar ones. On 12 February, I derived great personal satisfaction by being able to present Wagaman Primary School Council with a cheque for $15 000, which was an NTsafe Crime Prevention Grant to fund an initiative aimed at reducing vandalism. Fencing will be installed to secure less visible areas, and lighting will be upgraded to improve general visibility. The school is also hopeful of promoting broader community use of its premises by community groups.
On 13 February, I attended a business awareness luncheon, organised by Mr Lyall Wheaton, and also by Mr Rick Van Dieren. Lyall Wheaton is Executive Director of the Handicapped Persons Association of the NT, or HPA. The luncheon was preceded by a tour of Kokoda Industries, Supertube Outdoor Furniture, Calico Connection and Job-Link. I would highly commend a visit to these industries by other members in order to see the high quality of work produced at these outlets, and the wonderful work that HPA does in ensuring the employment of handicapped people in these industries.
At the end of the year, I was also invited to join the Rapid Creek Catchment Advisory Committee which considers and advises on policy for the management of the natural resources of Rapid Creek and its catchment. This area forms the only significant freshwater system in Darwin and, hence, is a valuable community asset. Increasing development in the area has meant that we have had to keep a close eye on it to provide protection of remaining vegetation and the creek amenity, as well as its water quality.
On 15 February, I had the pleasure of attending the National Heart Foundation Gala Fundraising evening. The evening was a great success for the foundation, an organisation which is naturally close to my heart and one which I fully support.
As the member for Greatorex mentioned, on 16 February, quite a good crowd turned out to celebrate the Chinese New Year at the MGM Grand Casino. The Chinese community welcomed the new year with two weeks of traditional festivities, which the member for Greatorex has detailed, and I am looking forward to the display tomorrow, and also Dragon Boat Racing on 3 March.
Dr Lim: It is a blessing. It is not a display, it is a blessing. It is like a Christian priest coming in here to bless.
Dr BURNS: The blessing, all right.
Finally, I was privileged to be asked to open a special gift to the people of Darwin at the Water Gardens in Jingili last week - a sculpture entitled Drop and Ripple, designed to reflect the way in which early settlement of Darwin was linked to the availability of water. The sculpture was a project put together by Total Recreation, an organisation that I hadn’t heard of before, but it is a support service for people with a disability. Total Recreation coordinates sport and recreation activities for people with a disability, as well as assisting them with inclusion in mainstream activities. Mr Paul Van Oosten, of Total Recreation, explained to me that the gift to the people of Darwin is as much a celebration of the potential of the abilities of people with an intellectual disability, as it is an opportunity for them to contribute to their community in a way which they feel will be valued. The artists include Narelle Harrington, Mark Cavenagh, Clint Logan, Liesl Hull, and Belinda Logan, and I urge all members to view the sculpture in the water gardens and reflect on its inspiration.
On Sunday evening, 24 February, I attended an Indian cultural evening at the Darwin Entertainment Centre hosted by Dr Vinod Kulkarni. This was a fantastic evening of music and dance performed by superb artists from India. There was a big crowd and all of them enjoyed the great performance.
Finally, or nearly finally, I would like to close on a personal note. Over the Christmas/New Year period, I was able to take some leave to spend some time with my mother and my two sons. My niece and sister also visited. My mother is now well into her 80s and wanted to spend some time at the family caravan which has been permanently parked at the North Beach Caravan Park near Urunga in New South Wales. It has been a holiday place for our family for over 15 years. Although I enjoy NT fishing and have caught my fair share, I must also confess to enjoying surf fishing and I was able to do so, with our old friend Snow Moore. Snow Moore has been going to North Beach for over 20 years, and he has some interesting reports, not only of fishing, but also of naturalists who hang out up along the beach near Bundajan Rocks.
There are also other old friends I should mention - Pete and Dick Mitchell who have lived in the area all their lives. Pete is a great fisherman and catcher of beach worms for bait, an art in itself. In fact, I reckon Pete Mitchell is extremely knowledgeable in the mysterious art of catching beach worms, and I have dubbed him a professor of wormology. His brother, Dick, is one of nature’s true gentlemen, and a champion lawn bowler.
Finally I look forward to the coming year. It offers us all a great challenge; for me in particularly in addressing the issues related to the antisocial behaviour in the vicinity of the Airport Hotel. I look forward to meeting many Johnston electors over the next 12 months. I intend to review my door knocking immediately after these sittings. I have also been attending Rapid Creek markets on a Sunday. I am always available to the electors of Johnston.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members that they should be in the Chamber at 9.30 am tomorrow for the traditional Chinese Lion Dance blessing.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
GENERAL BUSINESS DAY
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Minister, pursuant to Standing Order 93, I nominate Wednesday, 27 February 2002 as the next sitting day on which general business will have precedence of government business.
PETITION
Cawood Court Development, Alice Springs
Cawood Court Development, Alice Springs
Ms CARNEY (Araluen) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 80 petitioners praying that the plan to demolish the Cawood Court unit complex in Alice Springs, and the previous plans for the site to be developed, proceed.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petitions numbers 2, 4, 7, and 9 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
Petition No 2
Darwin Harbour
Date petition presented: 17 October 2001
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Parks and Wildlife
Date response received: 21 December 2001
Date response presented: 26 February 2002
Response:
The Northern Territory government is actively considering a number of options for the sound management
of the natural values of Darwin Harbour, including its extensive mangrove communities. These include
the possible establishment of national parks and development of a Plan of Management under the
Planning Act.
Developments proposed for Middle Arm Peninsula and for the gas and petrochemical industry in the Top End
in general, will be subject to environmental risk assessments and would be developed only in accordance with
appropriate environmental management programs. Government is committed to developing and implementing
an integrated and comprehensive environment policy which supports sustainable development in the Territory
Petition No 4
- Woodroffe Primary School – Classroom Facilities
Presented by: Mr Stirling
- Referred to: Minister for Employment, Education and Training
Date response presented: 26 February 2002
Response:
- Petitioners have expressed concern about classroom facilities at Woodroffe Primary School.
Woodroffe Primary School in Palmerston:
- Woodroffe Primary School was designed for a permanent student capacity of 360 primary and
100 preschool students. Two transportable classrooms were provided during the mid-1990s
to cater for enrolment growth in the primary school which increased the capacity of the school
to 420 primary places.
- Two additional transportables were placed on site in August 2001 allowing the school to cater for
up to 480 primary students. Some adjustment to classes was needed while extra classroom facilities
were being put in place.
- August 2001 enrolments were 75 preschool, 447 primary and 10 special students. Enrolment growth
has been ahead of original projections primarily due to infill developments providing unexpected
population growth. Current utilisation of the primary school is 93% with 24% of the students coming
from outside the suburb of Woodroffe. It is expected that the suburb will stabilise and enrolments
will level off during 2002.
day due to lack of classroom space. This has been the situation now for over 18 months:
- Again, there was some adjustment to classes while extra classroom facilities were being put in place.
The situation has since been rectified.
to lack of classroom space:
- An extra class of 19 preschool children entering Transition class was formed for the beginning of
Semester 2. This accommodated all preschool children eligible to enter Transition class.
Woodroffe Primary School:
- Government's focus in the late 1990s was to provide school infrastructure to the new emerging
growth areas in Palmerston with limited capital. The Department of Education is preparing an
Infrastructure Strategic Plan for Palmerston which will enable future growth to be accommodated
in a timely manner. This plan will improve the provision of educational services to the community
ensuring that government can meet community expectations.
- Arrangements were made to provide three transportable classrooms at Woodroffe Primary School
during the second semester 2001. Two of these were in place in Term 3 2001 with a third to be in place
by the end of 2001. This alleviated some of the immediate accommodation difficulties at the school and
has been supported by the school council. When completed this will increase the school’s capacity to
510 student places.
the immediate future and the long term:
- Regular demographic assessments are made for all schools in the Territory to determine current and
potential student capacity requirements.
7. There be adequate classrooms provided for the immediate future and the long term according to that
assessment:
- In conjunction with the immediate provision of three transportable classrooms at Woodroffe
Primary School, a permanent redevelopment of the school to a capacity of 480 students at $1.3m
is to be considered. This project is part of the ALP election commitments in Building a Better Territory
and is expected to be considered by Cabinet for the 2002-03 budget cycle.
Petition No 7
- Drug Addiction and Funding for Rehabilitation Services
Presented by: Mr Henderson
- Referred to: Minister for Health and Community Services
Date response presented: 26 February 2002
Response:
- Thank you for your letter dated 28 November 2001, forwarding the terms of a petition read in the
Legislative Assembly on 27 November 2001 (Petition No 7) regarding a range of illicit drug use issues
and rehabilitation options.
I am pleased to accept this petition for careful consideration. There is no doubt that illicit drug use
is occurring in the Northern Territory and it is impacting on individuals and the broader community.
Illicit drug use is a complex and emotive issue with no simple solutions. It is not an isolated behaviour,
and is closely associated with broader social issues. There is a need for a multi-faceted, multi-layered
approach that calls on a range of resources across sectors of government, non-government agencies
and community structures, users, their families, and their friends.
At present, there is no clearly defined and evidence-based strategy in the Territory to comprehensively
address the issues associated with illicit drug use. To address this, I have convened an Illicit Drugs
Taskforce, chaired by Dr Valerie Asche, to consult broadly with the community, frontline workers and
experts, and draw on national and international best practice, to provide advice to me on priority
issues, durable strategies and directions for the Northern Territory.
More specifically, the taskforce will:
1. report on trends in the use of illicit drugs in the Northern Territory, particularly by:
young people. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare define young people
as those aged 12 to 24 years;
drug using parents of children up to 12 years of age;
2. advise on what is available and what should be practically applied in the Northern Territory
setting, with a focus on the above priority groups;
3. ensure an adequate spectrum of durable approaches and interventions through developmental,
prevention, early intervention, crisis management, and recovery programs;
have a drug-using member; and
interventions in the Northern Territory setting.
In essence, the taskforce will bring together evidence from national and international research with
the information obtained through the consultations to make recommendations to me about what will
work best in the Northern Territory.
A final report, outlining findings and recommendations will be given to me by 31 May 2002. These
recommendations will be given to me by 31 May 2002. These recommendations will form the
implementation of the government's 3-Point Plan to get tough on drugs and address many of the issues
raised in this petition.
Petition No 9
- Home Ground for Palmerston Magpies Football Club
Presented by: Mr Mills
Referred to: Minister for Sport and Recreation
Date response received: 21 February 2002
Date response presented: 26 February 2002
Response:
- Government is aware of the need for facilities in Palmerston and has been investigating options for a
future home for the Palmerston Magpies.
Discussions have been held with the Palmerston City Council over its position and the possibility of
rectifying problems at its Archer oval.
Another avenue, which has been pursued, is the generous offer from the Northern Territory University
for its Palmerston Campus oval for use by the Palmerston Magpies.
Government will continue to work with the Palmerston Magpies to see a viable solution to this issue.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the Gallery of Mrs Noreen Brown and members of the family; friends, and Darwin City Council colleagues of the late Mr George Brown. On behalf of all honourable members I extend a warm welcome to you all.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Mr George Brown - Lord Mayor
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise you of the death on 8 January 2002 of Mr George Brown, the Lord Mayor of Darwin from 1992 until his passing. I will ask honourable members, on the completion of the debate, to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect. I call upon the Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly express its deep regret at the death of George Brown, Lord Mayor of Darwin from 1992 until his death, and place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious service to the people of the Northern Territory, in particular the citizens of Darwin, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family.
Madam Speaker, it is my sad duty today to speak on this condolence motion for the former Lord Mayor of Darwin, George Brown. George was born in Paddington, New South Wales on 29 June 1929. He died in Darwin on 8 January this year, aged 72. George was a fine horticulturist with a passion for botanic gardens and he has left a huge legacy to this city, and a big gap in our lives. After three terms as Lord Mayor there is no question of his popularity with the people of this city and this Territory. We can see that in the outpouring of grief around Darwin following our loss.
A larger than life figure, he embodied some of the values that we see as uniquely Territorian - bluntness, egalitarianism and an ability to enjoy life to the full. Who could ever forget the time he showed the Today Show his Playboy brand boxer shorts, or when he kneed a member of the public in the groin after an altercation with an irate rate payer, or the time he claimed he could drive perfectly after one-and-a-half bottles of red wine. George told me the story about when he actually had drunk a whole lot of red wine and was breath tested in a pub. It did not show any kind of effect, it did not show any kind of level of alcohol in his blood. I think he actually was an extraordinary character, or had an extraordinary physiology, when it came to red wine and himself.
By all accounts, George had his share of difficulties in early life, spending many years in a boys’ home as a child. He later worked at many jobs including kangaroo shooting, gardening, shearing, the merchant navy, on sheep and cattle stations and on the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. Not forgetting, when he was at school at Parramatta Boys’ High, he was the captain of the cricket team that Richie Benaud, the Australian captain in the 1960s, was a member - and tells wonderful stories about how Richie Benaud’s father developed the skills of his sons while George was the captain of the team.
George arrived in Darwin in 1967 and fell in love with the place, as has happened to so many of us. Apparently, he was smitten after playing a round of golf at the old course on East Point and when you walk around that part of Darwin you can understand the magic that worked on him. I understand he sent a telegram to his employer in New South Wales saying: ‘Staying in Darwin, won’t be back’.
He got a job at a quarry at the 39 mile and it was at a social occasion in the neighbourhood that he met Noreen, a school teacher. They were married in 1969 and George soon after found the job of his dreams in the parks and gardens section of the Darwin City Council. By 1972, he was elevated to superintendent with a house inside the Botanic Gardens. He had found his vocation.
As we all know, the Botanic Gardens became George’s passion and the focus for his energies for so many years. His aim in life was to turn Darwin into a tropical garden, and when we walk and drive around the beautiful avenues of this city, it is George we have to thank, particularly for his work after Cyclone Tracy. George found out everything there was to know about trees and gardens. He set up garden clubs and societies and handed out advice to home gardeners, both on television and radio. His passion and advocacy made him – well, maybe not so much enemies - but people who would love to argue with him and, at one stage, he found himself banished to an office out in Palmerston. It was at that stage he decided to run for Lord Mayor and was elected to that office in 1992 by a convincing margin. George stayed in office until his untimely death last month.
A great character, a man of passionate views and the will to carry them into action, there will never be another George Brown.
On a personal note on behalf of my family, I would like to say thank you to George for the years of friendship he showed to us: to myself, my partner and especially to my children who he really was extraordinarily kind to - they both saw him as a friend. Again on a personal level, I will miss his company, I will miss the shared passion we had for many issues about Darwin and the Territory, particularly when it came to planning and maintaining our unique lifestyle. I will miss his sense of fun and irreverence that he shared with many others beside me, his views of the world - and sometimes we would disagree quite vehemently about them. I will miss dancing with him and I will miss drinking red wine with him.
My heartfelt condolences go to Noreen and the children, and all of us who are going to very much miss George Brown. On behalf of this parliament, I say he has made an enormous contribution to Darwin and the Territory. He made an enormous contribution to civic life and I think he touched every single one of us and we will certainly miss him.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister has outlined the role that George Brown played in our community and the incredible life that he lived to the full for 72 years. His death last month produced an enormous reaction amongst people of all walks of life. It was both an outpouring of grief and a celebration of the man and his actions. This morning, in formally supporting this motion, I only have a few words to add to what has already said and written about George Brown.
It was said of President Reagan that he was the ‘teflon president’; that nothing he nor his administration did, nor any of their mistakes or scandals, sullied his place in the affection of the majority of the people of the United States. George Brown had that same gift. Whatever council decided, whatever mishaps there were in some people’s mind, such as the mall, George seemed able to float above them and retain the love of the majority of the people. His eccentricities such as the caftan, the infamous underwear, the Mayoral Chain T-shirt, the desire to sing in public just about anytime he got a microphone, did not diminish his standing but rather increased the affection in which he was held. ‘Oh, that’s George’, was the universal response. He was a true larrikin in all the ways we use that word in Australia as a label of honour. He could be an annoying gadfly and a formidable opponent, a staunch ally and an eternal friend.
But he was the true friend who told you very, very bluntly when he thought you were doing the wrong thing. George was the bridge between the wild, last frontier, anything-can-happen Darwin and the modern city that we live in today. With George as Lord Mayor, the image lived on even though in reality he was pursuing his dream to make Darwin a city to rival any of the other capitals of Australia.
For 10 years our city was lead by this eccentric, charismatic Lord Mayor who so held the affection of the majority of the people he found little need to even campaign to be re-elected twice as the city’s first citizen.
Along with the many things that have been said about George Brown and his role in public life, I believe it was characterised by one outstanding trait, and I use the word ‘independence’. Independence from political parties, independence from vested interests, independence from political pressure in all its many forms, he was truly his own man serving only Territorians and acting, in his way, only in their interests. Labor, Conservative, Democrats, Greenies, any of them, no one can claim George Brown. He was his own man.
For many years before public office he devoted his life to developing our Botanic Gardens, now rightfully named in his honour and convincing the rest of us to develop our gardens.
Our thoughts this morning are with Noreen and we welcome her and her family to the Chamber this morning. They have lost husband, father, grandfather and brother. They have suffered a grievous personal loss.
We have all lost one of the great advocates for Darwin, an advocate for the continuing development of a great, green, tropical, modern city. In the end, it will be greening of Darwin after Cyclone Tracy and the rescue of the green ants will be the eternal monument to this irascible, loveable character.
The American humorist and poet, Ogden Nash, once wrote:
- I think that I shall never see
A billboard as lovely as a tree.
Perhaps unless the billboards fall,
I’ll never see a tree at all.
That verse could have been written for George Brown and I am sure George Brown would have said: ‘Good one, Ogden’. For his life and for his contribution to Darwin and the Territory, we can do no better than to borrow his own phrase: Good one, George.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I first met George Brown some years ago before he was actually the Lord Mayor of Darwin when, as I was a caller to his radio program on gardens, he advised me on the growing methods of various tropical plants. As an ardent gardener - and much, I must say, to the surprise of myself and my family - he appeared at our house the next day for a particular inspection on our plants. Our plants were very sad looking, I must say, and he offered various remedies personally. I am not sure that they got any better, but his kindness stays with me. I remember that time, and I think it is a reflection of the man, that he was very much a man of the people who took a keen interest in both the people of Darwin and the development of Darwin, particularly issues relating to planning and the environment.
In recent years, I re-met him as part of my former business career, and I valued his humour and large network of Darwin people. He is one of those people who seemed to know everyone and was a very much well loved Lord Mayor. I last saw him at a function at the conclusion of the Year of the Volunteer in Parliament House on 20 December last year, and he went around thanking people and congratulating them for their efforts. This was George at his best representing Darwin.
On a personal level, I will miss George and wish his widow, Noreen, and his family well during this sad time. Vale, George Brown.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, last month the Darwin community experienced the sudden loss of our Lord Mayor, George Brown. Even a casual observer must have been struck by the warmth and volume of the messages in support and sympathy expressed to George’s wife and family in the NT News. These messages were an indicator of the impact George had had on the people of Darwin.
I first met George around 1992 when he came to Katherine to look at people’s gardens. I am not a keen gardener, although I certainly appreciate a good garden when I am in one. A friend of mine invited me to join a group of Katherine gardeners as this special person was visiting – and that, of course, was George – and we could go around with him to the various gardens and perhaps learn a thing or two. So, on a typically hot afternoon, we traipsed around. The gardens we visited were a mixed bag and George turned out to be a funny, frank person who spoke very candidly on what he liked and what he did not like. What stuck in my memory was the number of times he told people to ‘pull it out’. What a shock! I thought these gardening types were all for planting stuff, but George, I learnt, was all for quality plants which can be seen and not hidden behind a great load of jungle.
When George decided to run for the position of Darwin’s Lord Mayor in 1992, his media profile as a result of things such as his gardening show had him as a genuine bloke, and I am sure that stood him in very good stead during that election campaign. I can remember after returning from Katherine to live in Darwin in 1993, how the locals felt the obvious improvement in parks and road verges and that they were a result of George’s win. My husband and I would often comment: ‘On you, George’, whenever we passed new improvements going in.
George’s death has provided an opportunity for many to reflect on the character of the man. I will not go into red wine and boxer shorts; that testimony can be found elsewhere. I have spoken to some of the current aldermen and past aldermen and learnt of the genuine affection they had for George Brown. They considered him a hard working man with an enormous love for Darwin. On the practical side, many of our city aldermen considered him a very good chairman of the regular council meetings and various committees he chaired over his time. His skill lay in being a good listener, giving everyone a chance to speak but, when the time came, bringing things together so a decision could be made.
Although George was obviously not one for pomp and ceremony, he took other aspects of his role very seriously. These included the PR aspect of the job. He worked tirelessly to promote Darwin, particularly when there was an opportunity to meet and greet visitors to the city such as cruise ships or representatives from our Sister Cities. Milikapiti is a Sister City of Darwin. It was a very moving moment at the wake held for George just outside here, to see the genuine affection the dancers from Milikapiti displayed. Their dancing was organised by the council President, Gibson Farmer, and movingly introduced by Mary Elizabeth Moreen, a council member. From her introduction, I gathered that George and Noreen Brown had visited their community on a number of occasions and both had obviously made a very real impact on the people.
It is obvious George was no part-time mayor. Most days he attended his office in the Council Chambers, fitting in a walk down the mall or a trip to our wharf to see how people were going. As the local member, I would occasionally bump into George in the mall and we would sit under a tree and mull over things. Other times, I would watch George from a distance. I would see him saying hello to people and being what he was: accessible, one of the people.
George was a popular boss for the council staff. Many of them found him a comfortable, approachable, relaxed and friendly man. I know many of his staff, past and present, were genuinely affected by his death. At a personal level, he was a role model; his passion for Darwin, and I also appreciated greatly his independence at a political level.
So to George’s family, who I know he loved and was so proud of, on behalf of the people of Port Darwin, I send you our sympathies for a husband, a father, a grandfather and a mayor who was irrepressible, who will be irreplaceable and who is sadly missed.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, my abiding memory of George Brown will be as a man and a mayor who was accessible, jovial, egalitarian and who was passionate about Darwin and the future development of Darwin. In every forum that I attended with George, wherever we were, whatever the community, George was always talking about how we could further develop Darwin to the benefit not only of our local community but also in terms of attracting investment here and bringing Darwin along economically.
His commitment to the greening of Darwin that other members have spoken about will truly be the lasting legacy of George Brown, the man and the mayor, and the beautiful, tropical city that we live in today, during the wet season, which we finally have, is in large part a testament to George Brown. The Botanic Gardens, which have quite rightly been named after him, will always stand as the true testament to the man.
Like many other people here, I suppose, whenever I have friends, family visiting from interstate, one of the places I always take people is to the Botanic Gardens. I really believe that those gardens do show off the tropical nature of our city and what is achievable in our city, and that is replicated in so many gardens around Darwin where people have been inspired by the Botanic Gardens and have sought to replicate those gardens within their own homes. I just wish that some of his commitment to gardening would rub off on me. It is not something that I have ever found time for, but I always admire people’s beautiful gardens, and they are in large part due to George Brown and particularly, as the member for Nightcliff spoke about, his time on the radio answering questions.
The other great memory I have of George and his egalitarianism is that he truly did embrace the multicultural community of Darwin. He was a friend of everybody, regardless of race, colour or creed. He was always there at the many multicultural events that we as members of parliament attend and, as the Leader of the Opposition said, he had a passion for serenading the crowd. On many occasions, George would stand up and belt out a particular number and that always went down well. But you never sensed with George that it was all part of a show; it really was that he believed in the multicultural aspect of our city and totally embraced it.
The last official event that I attended with George, just after Christmas, was the announcement of the commencement of the first stages of the Leeon Consortium’s Chinatown development. Again, George was absolutely passionate and committed to that development and saw it as an extension of the multicultural aspect of our city, and the ability to promote that aspect of our city interstate and overseas. He truly did embrace the concept. When that development is up and running that will be, in large part, testament to George Brown’s vision for the development of Darwin.
After that particular event, I attended a dinner that night, along with the opposition leader, and again George spoke passionately about the contribution of the Chinese community to Darwin and the Northern Territory and, as he always did, some of his anecdotes about the community were close to the edge. But George was never one for political correctness and nobody ever sensed any offence. He was just George being his usual self, having fun and talking as he saw it. He was genuinely embraced by the community and will be sadly missed.
George Brown, a true Darwin identity who did make a difference. He has left a lasting legacy to our community. On behalf of the Wanguri and Leanyer community, I pass on our condolences to Noreen and her family.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, ‘George Brown, former Botanic Gardens curator and long serving Lord Mayor, was one of the Territory’s best loved and most colourful figures’, wrote Camden Smith in the Northern Territory News of 9 January 2002.
‘His point of view on most matters was always black or white, never shades of grey. His lifelong passion was for things green and natural. His personal preference was for reds. But his name was Brown, a colourful character by any definition with a personality that was at all times true blue’, so descriptively eulogised by Allan McGill, Chief Executive Officer of the Darwin City Council at a church service on 14 January.
It brings back to my memory the time that I was representing the then Minister for Industries and Business at a presentation dinner at the old Beaufort Hotel Ballroom. I had to address the gathering of some 300 or so participants and award winners. I duly acknowledged the presence of the then Administrator, His Honour, Dr Neil Conn, and Mrs Lesley Conn; the then Chief Minister, the Hon Shane Stone, and Mrs Josephine Stone; and His Worship the Lord Mayor of Darwin, Mr George and Mrs Noreen - and for the life of me I could not recall his surname! I thought by using Noreen’s name that the surname would spring to mind. I stumbled along, and indeed commented over the public address system, to the amusement of the crowd, that I could not remember the surname, and I had known George and Noreen for years. It was not until the MC, Theona Mitaros, leant forward to remind me that I could proceed with delivering the body of my speech. Apart from apologising profusely to George and Noreen for the faux pas, I vowed to George that I would remember his surname from then on with my own picture of him as George Chocolate. And I never forgot his surname at any public function after that time. But just like George and gracious Noreen, sitting there in the gallery, they took it in great spirit and we continued to be good friends.
I came to know about George when I used to listen to his gardening radio show on the ABC each Saturday morning. My wife, Sharon, is a very keen gardener and she loved to listen to George’s tips on gardening in the Territory. But listening to George, for a Top Ender, a tropics man, he seemed to know a lot about desert gardening also. I am not a real gardener, I am not particularly imbued by that hobby, so many Saturday mornings started with battles about whether to listen to George or not. On some Saturday mornings he got me interested enough to pay attention to what he had to teach about Central Australian gardening.
It was no surprise to me when George announced that he was going to give the mayoral role a go in 1992. He had a public profile in Darwin, but what he had more was his desire to see Darwin and its city council become the premier council in the Territory. I was also in local government then, and the mayoral contest in Darwin was as interesting to me as was the pending council elections in Alice Springs. I was just finishing my second term as an alderman on the Alice Springs Town Council, during which I was also the Deputy Mayor. He was such a well known personality across the Territory and, obviously, particularly in Darwin.
Much has been said of George today and in the many eulogies written and spoken of him, words put together by people who have known him closer and for longer than I. I have known him and Noreen for but a few years. Noreen and I have a common interest in karaoke, but that is another story for another time.
George brought with him his laid back, yet punching-from-the-shoulder manner into local government politics. He was challenging of any matter that he could not agree with, and in others with which he agreed, but he felt needed more thought. Through my dealings with the man, as a member of parliament and later as the Minister for Local Government, I found him to be gracious, yet provocative and even controversial, eccentric and lovable. I enjoyed my repartee with him. He was quick of mind and age did not dull any of that - nor did the red wine - in fact on some occasions the red wine sharpened his comments.
I find most commendable the respect that his council colleagues and officers had for him. As Allan McGill said of him:
- Like all other mayors, he found it necessary on occasion to defend council decisions that were not in line with
his views, and did so with conviction - something that most of us would find difficult.
That is truly the mark of a good leader and political representative. His unapologetic commentary and his disregard for political correctness and what, to some people, may be inappropriate dress code, occasionally got George into trouble. Need I say any more about the boxer shorts or the knee in the nether regions of an obnoxious rate payer?
I never went to China with George - although I did go to Hong Kong with the his predecessor, Alec Fong Lim - and have not spoken with anyone who had been on those trips with him. I often wondered how he got on over there; whether it was a different George in China than in Darwin. Just the same, I don’t believe I, or anyone, had anything to fear about his behaviour. He was always the consummate politician when he met with heads of state, ambassadors and dignitaries of all sorts. I am sure he would have been likewise in China. His love of China was well known and I am was very glad to see him supporting the Leeon Consortium and the Chinatown development in the Darwin City. I hope that future councils will continue to support that, to develop the history of the Chinese in the Top End.
Many leaders would like to have had George’s ability to say what was in his mind, and have the commentary taken by the listener in the spirit with which it was delivered; that is the mark of a true leader. George Brown was a man for Darwin - he loved it, he lived it, he died while doing his job for it. As in the headline of the NT News of 10 January 2002, I say: ‘Farewell, George. You were …’ – and if I may add, you are – ‘… dearly loved.’
It was just and fitting that the Territory accorded him with a state funeral. On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to pass my condolences to Noreen and their four children, Yvonne, Patrick, Stuart and Bruce, and the many grandchildren of the family. Vale, George Brown!
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, as someone who does enjoy gardening, I would like to reflect on George the gardener, because the attitude of a gardener is reflected in all that George did. I understand Kipling once wrote that gardeners don’t arise by simply sitting in the shade and saying: ‘How lovely’. George was one who stepped forward from the shade and made a difference, not just in gardens but in the way that the tropical north does present itself.
When I considered moving to the Northern Territory, those around me had a picture of Darwin which is quite dissimilar to the way it appears today. I don’t think we could take anything away from the fact that the change in the Northern Territory’s capital city is as a result of the confidence, the knowledge and the passion we now have to create a tropical look for our capital city, largely due to the work of George Brown. I would have to say - to give a Palmerston connection - Palmerston is a city that is green, and a much of that is the experience that has been gained in Darwin. We started only a little while ago, so every garden there, or suburb, that would emerge, within a matter of two or three years is completely green. And so the legacy goes on.
Everyone has a George Brown story and, coming to the Northern Territory with a sense of this adventurous type of place, I can distinctly remember one week when my attention was arrested by George Brown. There was an acting principal of a northern suburbs school who had - I think George had only been elected for a short time - in that week run into George Brown’s car with the school bus. He was horrified, and then surprised to find that George said: ‘No worries, mate’, and it all got fixed up. He was quite impressed with the carefree attitude and that there was no drama. You know: ‘You okay?’, ‘Yes, everything is fine’.
Later in that week, when I went to a board meeting, a reverend came to speak to me and said: ‘Did you hear George Brown on the gardening show?’ ‘No, I didn’t’. He said: ‘Well, it will only be in Darwin, mate’. He said that a caller phoned to ask for advice about a liquid fertiliser and, without any ado, he suggested that this elderly lady should grab herself a bucket and piddle into it, top it up with water, and throw it on the plants. There was no offence in it because any good gardener knows that that is fair enough. But I think the image of a mayor speaking as such to an elderly caller certainly got everyone’s attention. We then started to understand that this man ain’t no regular mayor. Once again, there was no criticism. He was just a delightful man of his own cut and his own charter in life.
He had no drama about pulling out weeds in gardens, as the member for Port Darwin referred to. There was no drama about pulling out any weed, or any concept that he would have to cast his eye on and say: ‘Well, that’s rubbish, and get rid of it’. You knew exactly where he stood. A gardener would also look to the future. A gardener doesn’t plant something just for their own return; a tree is planted for future generations. The Botanic Gardens are there for many, many years and for many generations and families to enjoy.
I guess the love that we have for George is that he did look beyond himself. He looked not just to now, not just to an election, not just to his campaign, but he sincerely worked for the greater good of the Northern Territory. I would have to say, in that respect, he is an example to me, personally as a politician - and, I would suggest, to everyone here - in the example that he did set in his own affairs from beginning to end. He was a gardener to the end, watering a plant in his own office.
Everyone has a George story but what I found remarkable, I suppose, is a reminder of our job in representing people. George had a contact with every person - there was a point of contact. He was not fake, but there was a real connection that every person could actually make in a meaningful way with him. I remarked on that. I felt that I had a personal connection through my farming background. He was in Western Australia at one stage in an area that I am familiar with, and I thought: ‘Oh gee, that is interesting, I feel special. I know George, and I know something about his past and he knows something about my past’. I reflected as time went on, practically every person had a point of contact with George in some unique way. That meant that he cared for people and he could make that contact, and that is what makes the difference.
Finally, in terms of the future, I have had the great privilege of looking at George still with us in some respects, in his grandchildren. Watch out! Daniel Brown, his grandson, whom I know well, and Peta Maree have a spark of George in them as well.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a tribute to the memory of the late George Brown. I cannot recall the age I was when I first came to know George. I certainly recall that his wife, Noreen, was a teacher at Nimira Primary School, post-Cyclone Tracy when three schools were merged. I recall that Dawn, my mother, would often take me to the Botanic Gardens on a weekend where she would sit down and discuss the burning political issues of the day with George and Noreen, who were good friends of hers and remain good friends.
I was touched by the outpouring of love extended to Noreen and her family by the community of Darwin in the time of the tragic death of George. It reminded me why I love this city: because this city and its people love the characters who work hard for them. I found George, as a professional, in dealing with him while I was Editor of the Darwin Sun, to be absolutely accessible and to be generous with his time. For me, he was also a man who encouraged youth, and the aspirations of youth entering public life. We would run into each other at various functions. He would always greet me with an enormous smile and a kiss on the cheek and words of encouragement. He was an aspiration to me. He will always be in my memory about what it means to work for the people. I share the sentiments of the member for Blain in that respect. He taught many of us that we ought to care about people, and take that caring through every aspect of our working lives.
I find the work he did in the Botanic Gardens to be quite glorious. My children and I go down there regularly and enjoy it. If I ever need to feel close to George, picnics down there will be a special time for myself and my family. When I find those quite moments in the garden at home with my children, when the sun is shining and the breeze is coming up, I can have quiet conversation of the goodness that can be found in many of our leaders and the man to me who epitomised that was George.
I give my heartfelt condolences to Noreen and the family. I thank them for giving their time of the man who was special in their lives. I know how difficult it can be when someone devotes their life to the community and that means that sometimes the family misses out. But it paid off in the end. Darwin is a far greater city and better city for him and I thank him.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, the speakers before me spoke highly about the late George Brown and that is no doubt expected because of the attributes that the late Mayor had. It is very noticeable that the contributions from all sides of politics is great.
I first ran into George Brown when wandering around the Botanic Gardens some time ago as a young fellow, and it was great to see that he was so at home with the natural world. Living in Katherine, as I did later on, I already regarded him through that distinctive voice of his as something of a friend through his radio show. Little did he realise that he had been guiding my hands in the garden.
Of course, I became much more familiar with the man and his style after he first became the Lord Mayor of Darwin - and what a style George projected. Most admirable was that he was a man who was always prepared to speak his mind on any issue. I think particularly on planning issues he was a man who showed the importance that local government can play in the every day lives of citizens. And of course he made a few enemies. I know that some Aboriginal leaders had some concerns about statements George made about itinerants, but it should be remembered that he was a man with a good heart. His main concern was that people should be able to return to their families and to their traditional lands instead of running into trouble with grog and violence in town. It is the same concern that many Aboriginal people share so it is hardly a redneck view.
My last fond memories of George were at the Territory Tidy Towns awards night last November in the Chan Building and watching him work the crowd. There were many Aboriginal communities represented at the awards and what stood out was that George treated presidents of remote communities as being the equal of him as Lord Mayor. He well understood their problems.
One of his co-local government leaders was from Milikapiti. It was quite funny actually when George was presenting the award and the president from Milikapiti was accepting the award. Obviously, George had had his usual couple of red wines and the president from Milikapiti had also had quite a few beers. It was like the blind leading the blind off the stage! It was just wonderful to observe that because that spoke volumes about the man. It was a natural act of George to show care and concern and that is something that certainly will remain in my memory for quite some time.
Having the Botanic Gardens named after George Brown is a fitting tribute.
Madam Speaker, on this sad occasion I welcome the presence of Noreen and her family. I think you know, as all of us do here today, that we lost a great man. Long may his memory last.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, to a large degree it is difficult to add to all the wonderful stories and recollections that have already been made about George Brown, a great Territorian in every sense of the word. I certainly concur with the member for Blain because what is emerging here is the way that George Brown touched many people’s lives. He was a very accessible person and it is wonderful that all the tributes that have come from both sides of politics and from the citizens of Darwin. Like most Darwin people, I knew George for his mayoral duties and community services and I will speak briefly about these soon.
However, I would like to draw on the recollections of my friend, Craig Coleman, who has lived in the Territory for many years who first got to know George Brown after the cyclone. I think the way in which George assisted and supported Craig is probably a very common story and it is worth telling because of that. Like George, Craig has a life long interest in horticulture and immense respect for George’s knowledge of horticulture. However, Craig’s experience was in New Zealand and in the southern states, and he recalls first meeting George who issued an open invitation to share his vast knowledge with him and to help wherever he could. George freely did so over the next 25 or so years such was George’s generosity with his immense knowledge. When Craig embarked on a project to resurface the Dili Stadium, George was great supporter and was quickly able to convince council to support with tools, machinery and allow one of their employees, Mr Martino Soares, also to assist.
George was someone who could get things done. For those of who are representatives in the northern suburbs and in Darwin, we know the problems that mahogany trees can pose for us. I had one particular constituent, an elderly lady who was ill, who had a giant mahogany tree that had been given to her as a seedling post-cyclone to plant in her backyard. It grew into a massive tree and threatened her safety and her property. As a last resort - we had exhausted most of the avenues - she contacted George and very soon after that mahogany was removed. That was a great weight off the lady’s shoulders and also mine I might add. George never hesitated to help.
George turned his hand to many things and he was even a sports commentator. Last year, along with Tom Pauling, he commentated ‘Roy and HG’ style in the Roma Bar Cricket Cup. An unlikely pair being Roy and HG but I am told they did a fantastic job.
Finally, I remember George as patron of the Heart Foundation and I know that he supported many other community organisations and charities in the same enthusiastic way. He was always a lot of fun and he did turn his hand to singing on a number of occasions with the Heart Foundation. I think he had a special spot for the Heart Foundation because of the health recommendation of taking red wine - although he had a bit of a different idea in the quantities - to promote cardiovascular health.
Madam Speaker, it has been an honour for me to offer my condolences to Noreen and the family on behalf of the people of Johnston and so many other people throughout the Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, above all else, George was a gardener and for me that automatically makes the man great - with my apologies to the member for Wanguri.
George knew his plants and loved his plants and he shared that knowledge and love with anyone who was interested, and there were plenty of them. My first connection with George was when I worked on Bathurst Island as a works supervisor for Nguiu Shire Council. We had a coconut nursery and he wanted coconuts and now they grow tall near the Gardens nine-hole golf course. When I go past there, or if I get a chance to play golf and am looking for a golf ball under the coconut trees, I always think of George.
Local government was his other passion. Much to the chagrin of some people in this Chamber, George passionately loved local government, especially Darwin local government, and he told people so. He believed local government was the government for the people and he was the man best suited to lead the Darwin City Council because he was an independent man of the people.
I laughed and argued with George on many occasions. I met George through our roles in local government. No, we didn’t always agree, but George was never afraid to speak his mind, whether it was about his city, feral cats, the harbour, parking meters, the effects of red wine, African mahogany trees, political speeches on citizenship ceremony days, or the Planning Act, he said his piece.
I have just been recently elected as Chairman of the Australian Open Garden Scheme Northern Territory, of which George was the chairman. It will not be possible to fill his shoes, nor would I attempt to, but I know when I am judging gardens through Darwin and the rural areas, he will be keeping an eye on what I do or how I judge those African mahoganies.
We will all miss George, his jokes, his larrikinism, his thoughts, his wisdom and his love for people, no matter how high or low they ranked in society. He made no distinction. My condolences to Noreen and the family, to his friends, and aldermen of Darwin City Council. I say: Rest in peace, George, but I have a feeling he is already giving a few gardening tips to his maker.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their remarks. Before I ask members to observe a minute’s silence, I, too, would like to make a few remarks.
I have known George both professionally and personally for many years. He was a person who always made himself available to me, and that has come across in your remarks. Whenever I wanted that second opinion or a no-nonsense point of view, what always impressed me was his belief in fair play and his sense of justice, his ability to rationalise situations and come up with simple answers - something we all should learn from.
George was, as you have all said, a people person. That is what people remember most, his approachability. Can I just remind members - and the Clerk reminded me this morning - that George had a quest in life. You may remember, Noreen, that he always searched for that bottle of bad red wine. I want you to understand that the Clerk and many others of us will continue that tradition of searching for that bottle of bad red wine.
To you and your family, we extend our condolences. You know that we all mean that sincerely and we wish you well in the future.
Finally, I have been requested to associate former members of this Assembly, the Clerk and Officers of the Legislative Assembly with the terms of the motion and to express their sincere sympathy also to Noreen, her family and friends.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I now ask honourable members to observe one minute’s silence.
I thank honourable members. While family and guests are leaving us, I inform the House that I have invited Noreen and her family into my office for a morning tea. If any of you that can join us, please feel free to do so.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Chinese New Year
Chinese New Year
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that at 9.40 am tomorrow the Chung Wah Society Lion Dance Troupe will perform a traditional Chinese Lion Dance to bless the Chamber for good luck for the Year of the Black Horse. I would ask those honourable members wishing to be present for the traditional Chinese Lion Dance blessing to be seated in the Chamber by 9.30 am. The bells will be rung at 9.30 am.
I also advise that I have given permission for various media representatives to film or take photographs of the Chung Wah Society Dance Troupe performing the traditional Chinese dance.
DR DICK WEBB, AM - DEATH OF
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with regret that I advise of the death on 31 January 2002 of Dr Ronald Campbell (Dick) Webb, AM, who was an Official Member of the Sixth Legislative Council from July 1958 until October 1959. Dr Webb was an appointed member of that Council. On behalf of honourable members, a message of condolence has been sent to the family of Dr Webb.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Increased Funding Allocations -
Boost for Small Business
Increased Funding Allocations -
Boost for Small Business
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, last August, Territorians voted for a government that would listen to them whatever their background or interest. The business community has voiced its views through the Economic Development Summit, the recent business round table and through better access to ministers. It is very clear that we inherited capital works and maintenance programs that were in a mess.
Shortly after taking office the government was advised that no money had been allocated to a number of significant capital works announcements by the previous government. On closer examination of the capital works and maintenance programs we found that there was a drastic shortfall of cash for repairs and maintenance work largely driven by underfunding for repairing flood damage. This is the type of work that impacts on small contractors across the Territory.
We also found that very large projects like the port and hospital had soaked up the majority of the cash for capital works and needed more of it. We found that the capital works program was essentially a wish list of announcements and that the revote for this financial year and for the next financial year was at an unsustainable level. The scope for new works was so narrow as to be virtually non-existent.
This government acted immediately. We allocated an additional $10m to be split between minor new building works, and repairs and maintenance. The $6m for repairs and maintenance was designed to overcome the black hole of this budget and ensure that period contractors had an amount of work to keep as many jobs as possible in those businesses.
The rest of that money, $4m, was designed to overcome the steep drop in cash allocation that would have occurred in the minor building works area had the CLP’s May budget been left in place. Given that in 2000-01 the cash allocated to minor works was about $19m, the cash that the CLP government had made available to minor works in 2001-02 was going to drop to about $9m. This would have left many small businesses in serious trouble. After these allocations were made by the Labor government, we also promised to keep an eye on the effect of these reallocations and to look again at whether more was needed to be done.
I am pleased to announce this morning that the government now intends to allocate: $4.5m for minor building works made up of reallocated funds and new money; an additional $0.5m for design work this financial year to ensure that those industry sectors, such as architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, have work coming their way; and an additional $0.5m to commence environmental and engineering studies to be done at Glyde Point to prepare for major gas based developments in that location. Additionally, Territory Housing will be fast tracking $900 000 to increase their minor works program aimed at renovating and improving our public housing stock.
The effect of these increased allocations will mean that there will be a total cash allocation in 2000-01 of approximately $18m for minor new works plus an additional $1m that will flow into the building and engineering design professions. It also means that small business and contractors such as plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and cabinet makers, will all benefit by extra work and more security over the coming weeks and months.
As an example, the following additional works will go to tender in the coming weeks:
- at Bullocky Point Museum the history and cultural laboratory refurbishment, $33 000;
at the Territory Wildlife Park, a new shark aquarium, $38 000;
Litchfield Park, supply and install campground facilities and vegetation protection fencing, $40 000;
at the Centralian College, modification to the welding workshop, $20 000;
the Oenpelli Health Clinic building modifications, $55 000; and
various parks, chemical storage and wash-down areas, $31 000.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a government that has done nothing in six months that it has held office. This is a government that has stood here at every opportunity and brought forth statements about what they are going to do, who they are going to consult with, how they are going to create jobs, how they are going to help small business. The proof is in the pudding. We have unemployment in the Northern Territory at 8.4%. We have small business in probably the worst circumstances that they have ever been in in the Northern Territory, and if you do not know that, go out and talk to them.
If you walk down the mall - if it wasn’t for the railway there would be tumble weeds rolling down that mall at the moment. There are so many shops empty down there in the mall in Darwin. You walk out to Casuarina Plaza, talk to the people at Casuarina Plaza, and there are less of them to talk to because they are either moving out to cheaper places because they can’t afford it, or they are closed, and you know that. Now don’t tell us that the Capital Works Program was a wish list, because the Capital Works Program was the real thing. It was about things called the railway, things called the redevelopment of Alice Springs Hospital, things called the redevelopment of Darwin Hospital, things called the Alice Springs Convention Centre, which you point to proudly as growing jobs in the Northern Territory. These are all initiatives of a CLP government. What has happened with this government is nothing.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I appreciate he has been to central council. I know that he gets fired up after he has been to these things, but there is no need to shout. I could hear him from outside of Parliament House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Continue, please.
Mr BURKE: Mr Deputy Speaker, if there is anyone who has a record of shouting in this House, it is the Leader of Government Business and Deputy Chief Minister.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Just continue, please.
Mr BURKE: There is a reason to get concerned. I am concerned because - let’s use this House for a little more than a litany of press releases coming up; let’s use this House for a little more than a litany of vision statements that don’t result in anything so far; let’s use this House for something that demonstrates and produces real jobs in the Northern Territory and then you might get some support from Territorians. The only thing I heard that really I saw as a new initiative was the $38 000 aquarium at the Territory Wildlife Park. They must be tiny fishes. For $38 000, is that an initiative to create jobs in the Northern Territory? Tell us another one.
NT Shelter
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, earlier this month I had the pleasure of announcing funding for the NT Shelter. The government, through Territory Housing, has funded a full time position and associated costs totalling $82 000 to NT Shelter.
The NT Shelter is a community-based housing organisation that represents housing clients in the community housing sector to government, the housing industry and the wider community. Northern Territory Shelter is a part of a nationwide network of shelters in Australia and is the peak housing body in the Northern Territory. This government, and I as Minister for Housing, are committed to the development of Territory Housing policy to improve accommodation opportunities for low income and disadvantaged housing consumers in the Northern Territory.
In supporting NT Shelter, the government recognises the importance of collaboration between government, community and private sector organisations for the provision of an improved housing service delivery for private and community housing tenancies. The ongoing contribution of NT Shelter has succeeded in bringing together government, the private sector and community organisations through housing forums. The result of these forums include improved consultative mechanisms for Territory Housing; and the development of Territory and national housing policy in the provision of housing service delivery to indigenous people, people with disabilities, seniors and youth. I am particularly pleased with the working relationship between Territory Housing and the NT Shelter to progress a number of key projects, including further housing forums with community organisations. These forums aim to improve access to affordable and appropriate housing for Territorians through community consultation.
Another important proposal is increasing sustainable tenancies for young people and the NT Shelter’s Youth Transitional Housing Project, which aims to address issues for young people moving from crisis accommodation to public housing. An additional initiative of NT Shelter is the care coordination process which focuses on providing appropriate and sustainable tenancies for public housing applicants and tenants with complex and high needs. Early intervention is important and equally so is the coordination of government agencies in providing thorough and unduplicated support to mutual clients.
Finally, in identifying one of the major obstacles for public housing tenants, NT Shelter aims to establish a financial counselling service for public housing clients. This service aims to provide public housing tenants with basic financial counselling services to better manage household budgets and meet rental payments. NT Shelter has made a significant contribution to the progress of housing issues in the Northern Territory, in particular, their commitment, support and work carried out ensuring the success of the Territory Housing Consultative Forums.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in line with the social justice principles of this government, and as Minister for Housing, I am committed to developing sound policy and improving housing services delivery to those disadvantaged and low income Territorians.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the minister’s prepared statement to this House, and recognise that he has lauded the CLP policy he has continued to support this last six months. This government, obviously, has done nothing. What other new initiatives have you brought about? Not a single new initiative have you brought about in Housing. Everything you have done so far have been initiatives of the CLP government. Have you been asleep all these last six months? Have you been asleep? Where is the minister? All he could do was read from a prepared statement about NT Shelter, which we started, we negotiated and introduced.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. Member for Greatorex, please address through the Chair. You have a point of order?
Mr STIRLING: Exactly that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased you picked it up.
Dr LIM: Mr Deputy Speaker, what I have said is that this new government, in the last six months, has only been able to continue the policies and programs that the CLP government previously introduced. For the last six months you have done nothing. This minister has been asleep. He has been asleep for the last six months and one day he is going to wake up like Rip Van Winkle and see that the world has gone past him.
I applaud what NT Shelter has done. I think it is a very good policy to bring about to assist our low income earners, our young Territorians who are struggling to find low cost housing; that is the right way to approach it. We did that during our term in government. It is now beholden on that side of the Chamber to introduce some new policies to ensure that our young Territorians, our low income earners, continue to receive support.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, the former Minister for Housing has to realise, if he was not aware of it, that on many occasions the department put up these ideas and they were rejected - rejected by the Country Liberal Party government. They were never supported. They were never supported until just before the August election it got some support, but we got into government and we allocated the money. We allocated the money. The department has advised me on many occasions that …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, your time is up.
Alice Springs Hospital
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, members on both sides of the House will be aware of recent public criticism of the Alice Springs Hospital. The truth is, this government inherited an Alice Springs Hospital in crisis. Both the Chief Minister and I have visited the Alice Springs Hospital since coming to government. We are acutely aware of the issues confronting the hospital and are determined that they are resolved.
When we came into government we found a health system where demand for services had far outstripped supply. There are resulting serious implications for our operating theatres, our emergency departments and even our intensive care units. Fortunately, our dedicated staff have coped. But this cannot continue indefinitely. For this, we could lay the blame firmly at the feet of our predecessors but that would achieve little. There are demand problems and staff shortages throughout hospitals in Australia. The health of Territorians and of their health system is too critical to be made a political football. We inherited a raft of problems and whatever may have been the case, I call on honourable members on both sides of the House to recognise this and to lend support to the well-planned and executed agenda for improvement
I would like to take this opportunity to report to the House on some of the steps that have been taken by my department to restore the community’s confidence in the Alice Springs Hospital. My department is engaged in a comprehensive hospital improvement project. The project involves a review of all public hospitals in the Northern Territory, with the fundamental objectives being to improve the quality of care in patient outcomes and clearly define the role of each hospital, and the range and level of services to be provided.
In the review of the Alice Springs Hospital, problems were identified relating to an acute shortage of nursing staff, increases in levels of activity, budget pressures, recent management changes, and the lack of strategic directions for the hospital. All of these have the potential to impact on the quality of care and levels of service. In view of these risks, a decision was made to focus attention on Alice Springs Hospital and develop strategies to place the hospital on a sound footing. The hospital is preparing for an accreditation survey by the independent Australian Council on Health Care Standards, and this will take place in August 2002.
A concerted effort is being made to increase the recruitment and retention of nurses in the Northern Territory. These initiatives include: the implementation of a new and improved nurse career structure; constant and individual contact with national nursing agencies; a preparedness to negotiate conditions for highly-skilled registered nurses; working with international agencies to facilitate immigration for approved overseas-registered nurses; ongoing general and specific advertising nationally, including electronic advertising; the recently concluded enterprise bargaining agreement which provides a recruitment package that can compete with other states; a Northern Territory recruitment and retention task force which is about to market and implement registered nurse, enrolled nurse, 75% salary funding for a clinical placement program for NT-based nurses who are no longer working as nurses, but who may wish to re-enter the nursing profession; the Alice Springs Undergraduate Nursing School which commenced this semester; and a recruitment of an initial 5.5 nurse educator positions to provide support for students, new graduates and nurses wishing to re-enter the nursing workforce.
I am aware that concern has been expressed about the quality of accommodation for nursing and medical staff employed by the Alice Springs Hospital. I am pleased to advise the House that steps are being taken to address this issue. The involvement of staff in reaching solutions is crucial. To this end, hospital management has had a series of meetings with all departments in the hospital. I assure honourable members, and the community of Alice Springs, that my department is giving the highest priority to addressing the issues at Alice Springs Hospital in a short-term way and, after stabilising the situation, will move forward within the newly developed strategic framework.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, there are a couple of points to make. The first is on the theme of: ‘This is all barley’s, please do not make it a political football’, which we have not done. This is in sharp contrast with those opposite who, on every occasion, chose to use circumstances in health to erode public confidence in some kinds of monopoly services in hospitals like Alice Springs Hospital. It is an erosion that continues, and it is now the legacy of those opposite that the thing kicked off.
The minister is saying: ‘Barley’s, please do not look there, please do not kick me around because the hospital is in crisis’. She must look there, she must visit. We have had anecdotal reports of a variety of very negative incidents, some verging of life-threatening, that have come from that hospital. I have not chosen to publicise those. In all cases, I have asked that they be brought to the attention of the minister. I hope she is aware of these. I guess the most telling example is, in a recent briefing from senior hospital staff, the intensive care unit was described as unsafe.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! We are told on one hand that these are anecdotal, so therefore …
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: … now they are being reported as fact. It is another one of his flyers.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order! Order, quiet please.
Mr DUNHAM: Mr Deputy Speaker, on three occasions when we have been given our two minutes to answer there have been frivolous points of order called. I suggest people who are unknowledgable about standing orders, read them.
The fact is this minister has no idea what is going on, she has not involved herself. There is a calamity in the making. It affects the health and wellbeing of Territorians - particularly those in Alice Springs - and it is too late to say: ‘We want to consult, and we want to talk to staff and we have all this stuff on the books’. All that stuff has been on the books since our days and it is well documented. It is not anecdotal, it is well documented. So, it is time that this minister grabbed the mettle with both hands and got on with the job.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would be happy to respond to that. First of all, I am very sorry that the honourable member was clearly not able to listen to what I was saying. In my report this morning, I made it quite clear that the health of Territorians was much more important than political point scoring. I think it is a bit sad that the members opposite feel that they have some kind of high moral ground, after 27 years in power, of having the control of this hospital. We arrived here, we have had six months in office, I get the portfolio, and I find that the hospital is in absolute crisis. We have made significant moves to turn this around and we will fix it, despite the lack of help from the opposition in terms of community support. We will fix it, what they have left for us, after 27 years.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before you start. Please make a note that because there is only two minutes to reply, can we make sure that point of orders are really points of orders, because there is not much time to reply.
NT Sports/Bookmaking Industry
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I note that the timing of the responses is not as accurate as it might be either, so there is some leeway in these things.
Members of the Assembly may be aware from recent publicity that one of the world’s largest telephone sports bookmaking operations has relocated to Darwin. Sportingbet Australia Pty Ltd commenced operations at the Fannie Bay Racecourse on Thursday, 21 February, under a licence issued by the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Commission. Last year, this operation had a turnover in excess of $A500m. Sportingbet Australia Pty Ltd is a subsidiary of the UK publicly-listed company Sportingbet UK. At the same time, one of Australian’s leading Sydney’s rails bookmakers, Mr Michael Sullivan, has moved his operations to Darwin and will manage Sportingbet’s racing operations from Fannie Bay.
Sportingbet will inject funds into the Northern Territory racing industry by renting space and acquiring other ancillary services from the Darwin Turf Club, to the tune of around $150 000 per annum, and by making a $50 000 grant to assist in the provision of industry training via Centralian College based in Alice Springs. In addition, Sportingbet’s decision to operate in Darwin will create over 30 jobs locally and inject more than $1m into the Territory economy.
The relocation of Sportingbet to Darwin has already attracted criticism from industry players and ministers in New South Wales and Victoria. However, the relocation means that those Australians who have, in the last years, been betting significant amounts of money offshore with sport bookmakers operating in places such as Vanuatu, can now place their bets legally onshore in a properly regulated environment. Moreover, Sportingbet’s move to Australia means the benefits that the business generates will no longer be lost to overseas. The relocation of Sportingbet has been welcomed by other sports bookmakers in the Territory. Noted Alice Springs bookmaker, Terry Lillis is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald last Friday saying that: ‘The new mob strengthens the Territory which is now the home of offcourse betting’. The Northern Territory government endorses those sentiments.
However, the Northern Territory government has adopted a careful and thorough approach to the licensing of Sportingbet operations here in the Territory. Sportingbet acquired the Vanuatu operation, known as Number One Betting Shop, in March 2001. A sports bookmaker license has been issued to Sportingbet on the condition it not engage or employ the former owner of Number One Betting Shop, Alan Tripp, who has been convicted in Australia of SP bookmaking offences. The condition requires that Mr Tripp, or his associates, not become a material shareholder in the company or associated companies. ‘Material shareholder’ is defined as a person owning or controlling, whether directly or indirectly, at least 5% of the issued shares with an entitlement to vote. The license so issued requires the operator to advise of any changes to the management or ownership of the company, subject to ongoing and extensive probity checks by officers of my department.
The Northern Territory government has also taken steps to address the long-standing call by punters and Territory bookmakers to make the Territory’s turnover tax more competitive with other jurisdictions. From 1 March 2002, the government will reduce the rate of turnover tax for racing contingencies. The racing rates are as follows: for registered oncourse bookmakers - 1% of turnover, no allowance for GST; for sports bookmakers - 1.55% of turnover less a credit for the applicable GST.
From 1 March 2002, a single rate of 0.33% will apply to all bookmakers for their racing contingencies. There is no allowance for GST or betbacks unless placed through the Northern Territory TAB. This new rate will be paid by all bookmakers operating in the Territory and is in line with the lowest equivalent rate paid by bookmakers elsewhere in Australia, being a club levy paid to the major clubs in Queensland as the lowest existing rate prior to our change.
Under the new tax rate, and because of the substantial increase in the volume of turnover brought about the arrival of Sportingbet, the Territory government revenue derived from turnover tax is expected to increase by around $1m per year. The more competitive tax rate enhances the Territory’s prospects of attracting other new operators which will bring further economic benefits and greater flows of tax revenue and industry assistance to the Northern Territory.
The government will also take steps to remove the current legislative restriction against bookmakers offering winnings based on final totalisator dividends. This will enable bookmakers to promote more flexible wagering products to punters.
The announcement is a welcome boost to the local racing industry, which is in turn, a major contributor to the Territory’s economy. We can, and do, expect further flack from our southern neighbours over the arrival of Sportingbet in Darwin, but I believe we have achieved a major win for the racing industry in the Northern Territory. I was particularly pleased with the positive feedback I received from the former member for Sanderson on radio last week about this initiative. I look forward to opposition support on this matter. I believe some steps were taken by our predecessors down this path. I look forward to, as in my time as racing and licencing shadow minister, generally a bipartisan approach to these matters in the House.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I welcomed the news when I heard of Sportingbet.com coming to the Northern Territory and the decrease in taxation rates. As the minister has highlighted, there was much work done on this, as I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House know. I know that I have talked personally with the minister on this very matter and that it was just a matter of selecting the right taxation rates and how to deal with GST and bet packs. I congratulate the minister for making the right decision. I believe this is the first of a number of large organisations that wish to relocate to the Northern Territory and I am sure the minister would confirm that there others in the wing that would like to do likewise.
It is ironic that now the minister will feel the wrath of his colleagues down south, his Labor Party colleagues, one in particular, Mr Richard Face from New South Wales, who will leave no stone unturned to try to convince the minister now to change his mind. But it is interesting that when the Northern Territory changes its tax rates, or indeed lowers its minimum telephone betting limits, that apart from all the noise you hear around Australia about doom and gloom to the racing industry, they immediately do one thing and that is start to lower their tax rates. New South Wales is moving today, or this very week, to lower their rates as far as bookmakers go and they have done a lot of things in terms of telephone betting. A lot of huff and puff from those but, as I said, ironic that there now will be this Labor minister who will cop that wrath from his colleagues.
I am glad to hear that Alan Tripp will have no material interest in any of the operations of Sportingbet.com. It will be interesting to see the revenue that is earned from this new company coming on board. I certainly wish them every success.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition spokesman for his words of support. We do appreciate the work that the former government put into these arrangements before we were elected in August last year. It certainly helped to bring about a fairly speedy resolution of outstanding matters to enable us to get Sportingbet in a position to be licensed and up and operating.
I, of course, read, as other members may have, some of the comments by Mr Face in New South Wales and Mr Hulls in Victoria. And can I just say, I look forward to the first ministerial racing summit. I hope it is the first ministerial council that I get to. I think it is set down for May and I really look forward to it.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 28)
(Serial 28)
Continued from 28 November 2001.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I put on the record I appreciate the time and effort the minister’s office gave in the detailed briefing I received, and also the assistance from the department in providing me with some details and background relating to this legislation.
The proposed amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act is a result of a decision handed down by our Supreme Court, the decision of Pinecot Pty Ltd v Anti-Discrimination Commission case. In substance, the anomaly created by the Supreme Court is dealt with quite clearly and succinctly in the section 105(1) and (2). In that regard, the government is to be commended for promptly dealing with this anomaly as it arose and responding in such a way to clarify the vicarious liability aspect of the Anti-Discrimination Act.
In my view, the difficulty arises with the extra steps that the government saw fit to include in the amendment, that is subparagraph (3) and subparagraph (4). At common law - and there is lots of law about the term ‘or reasonable steps’ and in other jurisdictions that particular provision exists. The commissioner, or if it is on an appeal, the magistrate of a court of competent jurisdiction, will have regard to what he thinks are a number of reasonable criteria to determine whether the employer took all reasonable steps and if all reasonable steps were taken then, of course, there is a situation where an employer can avoid the impost of having to pay compensation or comply with an order from the commissioner. That is what occurs in most of the other jurisdictions. There is lots of law on this phrase, ‘all reasonable steps’; there are lots of indicia which are considered in determining whether that employer has done ‘all reasonable steps’.
In our proposed legislation which the government has tabled in serial 28, presented to this parliament by the Attorney-General, the government has sought to place more emphasis on a number of the criteria, some of which will already have been considered by the commissioner or by a court of competent jurisdiction determining what ‘all reasonable steps’ would be.
The phraseology used in subparagraph (3) - and this is the first of a number of concerns which I have - talks about ‘without limiting the matters which can be considered’; there is no problem with that. There is a specific direction here that a number, or to use the terminology in the legislation, the following matters ‘are to be considered’. So there is a requirement here; they must be considered. Approval of that subsection talks about the provision of anti-discrimination training by the person; the development and implementation of an equal employment opportunity management plan by the person - and person here means a business; the publication of an anti-discrimination policy by the person; fourthly, the financial circumstances of the person; and lastly, the number of workers and agents of the person.
I can put on the record this side of the House certainly has no difficulties with subparagraphs (d) and (e). The difficulty arises, in my view, in the consideration of the requirement of the commissioner or the court to specifically consider the first three of those limbs.
The practical effect of this type of amendment will be that the court or the commissioner will now expect, in my view, a small or medium sized business that operates in Winnellie to have considered the provision of anti-discrimination training and expect them to have developed and implemented an equal employment opportunity management plan. Now, I accept there is a reference there specifically to the number of workers, but nevertheless we have the situation where the legislature has set up the parameters of what the court, or what the commission, should take into account. More specifically, there is certainly more than an implied direction that a small or medium sized business will have to run the gauntlet of satisfying those criteria to avoid liability for a recalcitrant employee.
Subparagraph (4) is a provision unknown in other jurisdictions and, indeed, the government is to be commended in part for this particular provision, however, it does not go far enough. The provision relates to if there is a finding that an employer or business is to pay compensation - that is, an employee has breached a provision of the act and the employer is vicariously liable for that conduct and the employer was not able to establish that all reasonable steps had been taken, the next step is that the commissioner or the court of competent jurisdiction then considers what amount of compensation should then be ordered against the particular employer. This provision requires the commissioner to take into account a number of important matters in determining the quantum of that compensation. The one particular provision which is missing, and which is of a real concern, is a provision which enables the commission or the court to look closely at the effect which that order will have on the financial viability of the business.
In the committee stage I will be introducing an amendment by way of an extra subparagraph to subsection (4). That has been effectively lifted, almost word perfect, from the provisions that are contained in the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The reason we have suggested it is that the body of law which has already built up and has been used by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to interpret the particular phraseology can also be used by the commission in determining what factors to take into account. There is a real need, in my view, for the effect of the order for compensation on the viability of the employer’s undertaking, establishment or service to be included in this provision which is unknown in other jurisdictions.
The government is to be commended in one sense for its prompt response to dealing with the anomaly raised in Pinecot’s case and that is really confined to section 105(1) and (2). However, by attempting to particularise what considerations should be taken into account and then going to particularise exactly what consideration should be taken into account in determining the quantum of compensation, they have gone too far. It is an impost on small business; it is a burden which struggling small businesses should not have to bear, particularly at a time when things are not going perhaps as well as they should be. In our view, the provisions in subsection (3) and subsection (4) have not been properly thought out and are ill-conceived.
The clerk in charge of bills has already distributed some amendments which I instructed Parliamentary Counsel to prepare. At the committee stage I will go through and amplify each and every one of those points.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, noting the comments that the shadow Attorney-General has made, and also what I believe indicates clearly there are problems with this legislation, could I say two things: that the opposition strongly supports anything that is done by government to increase the information and education to employers to prevent discriminatory practices in the workplace. That is, without question, something that we support. But the issues with this legislation to my mind in its present format create more problems than necessary for the government this time. We can proceed with the legislation with the opposition’s support perhaps if section 3 is changed from ‘are’ to ‘may’ in terms of: ‘issues that may be considered’ in the legislation. But what I would suggest to you is this: why is it necessary to pass the legislation today? I understand the Chamber of Commerce and Industry have been …
Ms Martin: How many months do you need?
Dr Toyne: We introduced it in November.
Mr BURKE: Just listen to me. I understand the Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been briefed on the legislation by yourself and I understand that they have indicated support. I also know that they have had further briefings by the shadow Attorney-General and have expressed similar concerns to the ones that he has raised.
I also say to the government that there are a whole range of small businesses that are not members of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and they are the ones that we are particularly concerned about. For example, the Palmerston Regional Business Association has 200 members and not one of them knows about this legislation. What you are setting up is a situation where the reaction to your legislation will be, in its present format, that there will be an unacceptable additional impost put on small business by the way the legislation currently reads. To a layman with a small business employing a small number of employees - and you must know a number of them - you read this legislation that ‘the court is to take into account the following matters that are to be considered …’ and it goes through the provision of anti-discrimination training by the person, the development and implementation of equal employment opportunity management plan by the person, the publication of anti-discrimination policy by the person, etcetera.
The first reaction you are going to get from small businessmen who are facing increasing costs because of insurance premiums and other is that this will create an unacceptable cost impost to them and their businesses. If you want to steamroll this legislation through, you obviously have the numbers. What I am suggesting to you is that you consult further with business - in the first instance you could consult with Palmerston Regional Business Association - get these issues clarified and then proceed with the legislation at a later time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I cannot support the bill in its …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am getting tired of the actions and frivolousness and childish behaviour of the member for Sanderson in this Chamber. I would ask him to treat this Chamber and you with the respect that you deserve. It is not a football match.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Sanderson must realise that if he gets the call from the Chair, he may continue but, in that case, I did not see you, you were not on your feet quickly and the member for Araluen got the call so then you have to accept that. The member for Araluen has the call.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, as I said, I cannot support the bill having regard to the cost and inconvenience the bill, in its present form, will occasion or cause to small business owners. I agree absolutely with anti-discrimination legislation. I agree absolutely that government should lead the way to try to encourage employers to train their staff; as a fundamental proposition that is desirable in any jurisdiction in the country.
Having said that, the difficulty with this present legislation is that it makes life for small business owners incredibly difficult. The Attorney-General knows, or at least should know and should have been advised, that the matters contained in subsection 3(a) to (c) of the proposed section 105 go much further than this legislation necessitates. I would, with respect, ask him why this proposed legislation goes much further than it needs to? Why is it that this proposed legislation goes further than anywhere else in the country? My view is that the other governments in the country, the other Labor governments, have been more receptive to the needs and wishes of business than this government.
There is no doubt that the decision of Pinecot required legislative action and I note that the former government had intended to introduce very similar legislation. What the former government did not propose to do was to include subsections (a) to (c) of subsection (3), section 105. In the event that this legislation gets up and, of course we know it will, business community and in particular small business will be open-mouthed and very angry and the government will be condemned accordingly. Now it is all very well to say that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been consulted but, as the member for Brennan said earlier, the fact of the matter is that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry does not comprise every business operation in the Northern Territory.
I have checked in particular on the requirement of subsection (a), that is the provision of anti-discrimination training by the employer. My inquiries have revealed that the cost of a training package is $77 per employee and that the courses are organised by the Anti-Discrimination Commission. For an employer, a small business with say 10 employees, that means a yearly cost presumably of $770. For a larger business, let’s say with 100, that is a cost of $7700. Now the government might not be moved by those costs in particular, but when one considers that the training must apply to each employee, we need to pause and reflect on the transient nature of the Territory population and the Territory workforce. That means that a medium sized business can expect to pay $77 per employee as often as two to three times a month.
That is not a cost that business can afford …
Mr Kiely: I don’t think everyone in the NT Public Service has gone through training, do you?
Ms CARNEY: Well, you wouldn’t know, you have never been in private enterprise, have you?
Moreover, the time and resources spent on developing the Equal Opportunity Management Plan will make the lives of those in private enterprise much too difficult. What this government does not understand is that business already has a large number of demands on it and in the case of, for instance, a husband and wife business, or a family business, they do not have human resource managers. They do not have personnel departments and the husbands and wives will be the ones who will need to spend their time ensuring that they comply with subsections (a) to (c). It will fall to one person in a two or three person business whose time and energy, quite frankly, would be much better spent earning the money for the business and developing the business.
The matters I have mentioned, explain the thrust of the opposition’s objection to this bill, although we do quite rightly accept that limited liability for employers is a good idea and that of itself would be welcomed by business if done right. This bill that the government has produced has simply gone about it in the wrong way and the government has obviously, with respect, not thought through the consequences of this bill. I strongly urge the government to go back to the drawing board and come back with something better.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, the background to this legislation also is interesting. It came into force in 1992 and around that time all other jurisdictions also brought in anti-discrimination, or racial discrimination, or sexual discrimination acts. The difference between other jurisdictions and our jurisdiction was that the then government refused to put in a vicarious liability clause. Ten years ago it was argued in this place that such a clause should go in. It was: ‘Oh no, no, - we will take a suck it and see. We will come in with some half-baked legislation and we will put that in and we won’t worry about it. We will just go along with it’.
Well, a decade ago, Labor saw the flaw in this and it has come back now to haunt you. It has come back now to haunt the hardworking business people of this Territory, the ones who you purport to be trying to protect from overcharging and onerous trading duties.
Mr Burke: How? How?
Mr KIELY: Well, it is back now in the Pinecot decision and we are addressing it. We are the party that is going to look after small business. Not you lot who, for 10 years screwed them into the wall with inadequate legislation. With legislation that comes back to haunt them and now they are in a situation where they don’t know, if something goes wrong in the workplace they will be held responsible and they have no coverage. No coverage, and that’s thanks to you lot. We are going to fix that now, we are going to fix that with this amending legislation.
Mr Burke: You don’t even know the Pinecot judgment, do you? You don’t know the Pinecot judgment, you idiot!
Mr KIELY: The Supreme Court action of Pinecot v Anti-Discrimination Commission has established now in the presumption that the existing Anti-Discrimination Act does not implicitly provide for vicarious liability.
While we are talking about it, let’s go on about vicarious liability. When the law imposes vicarious liability on a person, that person is held responsible for the misconduct of another person because of their relationship. Vicarious liability provisions, which are soon to be incorporated into the Anti-Discrimination Act, is a kind of strict liability because there need not be proof of personal wrongdoing on the part of the person on what vicarious liability is imposed. So vicarious liability means simply ‘the buck stops here’. In any work situation someone is in charge. That person is responsible for the actions of the employees or people being supervised. What our legislation does is give protection for the employer. The employer, who you are so happily trying to screw to the wall, cause extra money to, which you have done over the years, which you seem to do willy-nilly and then try and say that you are the party that looks after private enterprise!
Let me tell you what has been happening in the last 10 years and this furphy about everyone having training that has been spread about by the CLP. Over the last 10 years I have been a HR practitioner in a number of jurisdictions under a number of different acts, and I have had cause to sit there and have people come to me and talk to me about things that have happened in the workplace. I have had cause to be involved in cases where people have feigned discrimination. We have managed through n these cases and they have been complex. They have been brought about by one person in the workplace attributing some action to their supervisor, and I have seen it, where the supervisor has said: ‘Well, I didn’t know what was going on, no one had told me’. What has occurred there is that the solicitors have got in on the act and said: ‘Beauty, we will join the employer. We will join the employer in this because they didn’t know about the vicarious liability provision because they weren’t written in there’. And these things have been settled before they get to court because this big stick is there, and what has happened is that this is costing small companies money because they do not know about it.
It is costing government money because they would rather go this way of not going to court. They would rather settle out and go to the vicarious liability provision, because they don’t exist because there is no defence at the moment. What we are out to do is, is make it clear to employers about what their liabilities are under the Anti-Discrimination Act as employers.
Insofar as the opposition’s remarks about the proposed amendments to section 105(3), well, 105(3) takes up concerns expressed by the employers but it can be difficult to show that they have taken all reasonable steps, that it can be difficult to show, so we are making it clear for them. We are setting a clear field for them to act in.
The subsection sets out criteria to be considered in determining whether all reasonable steps have been taken. It sets it out for them, no more interpretations by slippery lawyers, no more interpretations by slippery opposition. It allows for the consideration of the individual position of each employer, their financial circumstances and number of employees. This subsection is unique in Australia. It ensures that all reasonable steps to defence is a real defence. That is a real one that can be used by employers who have used reasonable diligence to develop anti-discrimination policies and procedures. It furthers the objects of the act by encouraging its employees to make their workplaces discrimination free. It rewards employers who take such steps.
In researching the subject of vicarious liability, I went onto the Internet and I had a look at the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They had a little something to say about small business. This is one of the so-called constituencies that our learned friends across the hallway here seem to want to say that they represent, but who they continuously have screwed to the wall and have cost money through their inaction and poor laws. The group that they say they want to help out, the group that they say will have to train every member of their staff up on anti-discrimination laws - which they know is a complete and utter falsehood. The NT Public Service with something like 15 000 employees does not send all their employees away. It makes sure that those people who are in charge are aware of the acts and the employment regulations their people work under, as I am sure all good employees do, as I am sure every small businessman knows when they hire someone. They know the cost, they know what is required, they do not need these falsehoods that you lot put around.
Getting back to small business, it says here that: ‘It may not be necessary for an employer of a small workforce to implement the type of formal processes described above’. I put this in relation to the part about the provision of the development and implementation of an equal employment opportunity management plan. It does not have to be all formalised out in contracts, it can be a statement. It puts into place an effective, informal mechanism to prevent and correct harassment. A small employer, if they put in a small plan, will satisfy this act.
It goes on to say that: ‘An owner of a small business who regularly meets with all of his or her employees might tell them at monthly staff meetings that he or she will not tolerate harassment and anyone who experiences harassment should bring it straight to the top’. That is what this act is all about. This is what this vicarious liability is all about. It is about meeting with your staff and telling them about acceptable codes of behaviour in the workplace and …
Ms Carter: You’ll rue the day!
Mr KIELY: Yes. You should tell your employers - and this is all I ask for - is to tell them about acceptable codes of behaviour and the consequences of not following that. Now, you are there once again saying this will cost money. Insurance is going through the roof, stress claims are going through the roof, discrimination claims get some of the biggest claims and they get up, and when they get up, your liability, it all goes up, the whole lot. Everything goes up, the rates of insurance that you have to pay.
This legislation will help employers bring in plans that will actually, I believe, bring down their insurance premiums over time. This bill will help people save money. This bill will make a safer working place for the people. But no, you wish to bring it back 10 years again. You wish to drive small business into the ground. You are not the party for small business. We are the party for the people. We are the party who will make this place a better place.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise also to contribute to this debate and I start at the outset by pointing out to honourable members in this House that the member for Sanderson’s contribution was, I think, some five times longer than the second reading debate itself. I think that many of the problems that we have with this type of legislation could be vastly improved if that 45 minutes allocated for a second reading speech was used more judiciously.
We had lectures about getting briefings from the honourable ministry opposite, in relation to what happens with the bills that they bring before this House. But surely, I suggest to the honourable members opposite, the most important briefing is the one that they give to us, as well as the one that they give to the judiciary who turn to the second reading debates when they are seeking some sort of interpretative guidance as to how to read the legislation that this House produces.
I do not believe it would be an unreasonable request of the minister to use more than a couple of minutes of his 45 minutes available to him, to brief us properly in relation to all of the issues that surround legislation like this. Indeed, on this occasion, once again, because of the brevity of the second reading speech by the Attorney-General, needless to say, once I had read the legislation for it and found a couple of errors, just typographical errors, which indicates to me that he has not been particularly thorough about it in his approach, on 14 December, I asked him specific questions which, I believe, should have been picked up in the second reading speech.
He did reply to me some six weeks later and just a little less than a month ago, in relation to the issues that I raised. I am grateful to the honourable minister for his kind attentions in relation to it, albeit they a little bit late. It is interesting that, for the first time, the minister actually raises the issue of Pinecot which was the catalyst - the decision by Justice Mildren which was the catalyst - for the proposed changes to the legislation that he has brought in this House. Indeed, I then returned to the second reading speech and I find it curious that what he said to this House and what has actually occurred in fact, appear to be two different things. I go to the second reading speech where the Attorney-General says: ‘However, recent litigation in the Supreme Court has called this assumption into doubt’. The assumption, of course, that the Attorney-General was referring to, was the assumption of vicarious liability.
That is the topic which is mostly hotly under debate today. It is curious that the Attorney-General seems to be at odds with the member for Sanderson over the issue of vicarious liability, because the member for Sanderson is under the impression that we are trying to introduce vicarious liability, and the Attorney-General is suggesting that the assumption in the courts is under doubt.
The truth of the matter is that the member for Sanderson is correct. It is the Attorney-General who was incorrect. There is no doubt about the issue of vicarious reliability …
Mr Stirling: Liability!
Mr ELFERINK: Liability. I turn to the decision by Justice Mildren, and I am certain that the member for Sanderson has read this particular decision from cover to cover, as I am certain that the honourable minister has done. I look forward to him telling us in this House that he has read this decision before bringing this bill before the House.
I turn to the decision by Justice Mildren. Justice Mildren says, at page 27 of his decision, that action of vicarious liability is an action in tort, and I quote from paragraph 38:
In my opinion, the act does not create a cause of action in tort, although it may create statutory entitlement
to damages that falls short of constituting a cause of action. As I have said, the remedies provided for by the
act are not able to be pursued in a court of law and the commission is not a court. There is no other indication
to be found in the act that the remedy is tortious in nature.
I then go a little bit further into the paragraph and I quote again:
- In my opinion, the correct approach to the question of whether or not the appellant is vicariously liable for the
acts of its servants depends upon the true construction of the act …
He then goes on, on page 30, to make a comment about the true construction of the act, and I quote again:
The act only provides for the liability of others where the person concerned causes, instructs, incites, assists
or promotes another to contravene the act: see s27(1). In such a case, that person becomes jointly and severally
liable with the principal contravener (s27(2)). It would have been a simple matter for the legislature to have
expressly provided for the liability of principals or corporation for the acts of their servants or agents. They did
not do so and I think that in the circumstances it must be inferred that the omission to do so was deliberate.
Indeed, the suggestion by the member for Sanderson is that that was indeed the case, is that the parliament deliberately chose, originally, not to introduce the tortuous nature of vicarious liability. Whatever reason they chose to do so, that was the act of parliament at the time. So for the Attorney-General to come into this Chamber and suggest that there is something that has been called into doubt, I believe, is quite incorrect. That then raises a question as to what exactly the Attorney-General and the Northern Territory government are trying to do in this Chamber.
Madam Speaker, the answer can be found, or at least started to be found, in the second page of the letter which I received from the Attorney-General some six weeks after I wrote him the original letter:
Unlike legislation in other jurisdictions, more meaning is given to these defences through the inclusion of indicia as
to what constitutes all reasonable steps. The NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry were consulted in the
development of this bill and I understand support its passage.
The question is, what exactly did the NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry think that they were supporting? This approach by the Attorney-General to introduce social legislation, which is his entire right and the right of the government for the day to introduce what legislation they see fit, is an attempt to dress it up as something that it is not. The Attorney-General says in his second reading speech about the defences that the acts create, and the defences are outlined in the bill under section 105(3). That outlines a list of five offences or reasonable steps which the court may turn its attention to in an effort to provide defences for a person who stands accused under the legislation, thus introducing the concept of vicarious liability to the act. It is not clearing up a doubt. It is changing the act in such a way as to actually introduce the concept which is new. The member for Sanderson was quite correct in the way that he read the bill before this House.
If I turn to Justice Mildren, His Honour points out the liability of the company by one of its agents is entirely possible where the agent itself is acting in such a way as to be representative of the company and there is no difference between the agent and the company in any practical sense. The separation of a person who is engaged in a frolic of his own was in the contemplation of the original drafters of this legislation and was within the contemplation of the parliament itself. So, what we have is a smoke and mirrors approach. The government goes to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and says: ‘We have this great piece of legislation. Unfortunately, this vicarious liability thing has come under some doubt in the Supreme Court. But don’t worry. We are going to fix your problems for you with this neat little piece of legislation here. We are going to fix it, it will all be right, she’ll be sweet’. We have heard from the member for Sanderson that that seems to be the intention. The fact is that they are introducing a new liability on business here in the Northern Territory through the process that they have chosen to pursue. That’s fine, that’s within their right to do so.
But it is incumbent on a government when it is dealing with Territorians to be honest and forthright with those Territorians. If the government wants to introduce new legislation and create a new situation where there is vicarious liability, then they should just come out and say so: ‘This is something new that we are going to do and these are the barbs and these are the defences. This is where the hairs are on it. These are the advantages’, and at least outline exactly what they intend to do. But the reason that they have chosen to be a little bit slippery about this, I believe can be found in section 105(3) in the proposed bill: ‘For the purposes of subsection (2) and without limiting the matters that may be taken into account in determining whether a person has taken all reasonable steps the following matters are to be considered …’. It then goes on to those lists of so-called defences that the minister has presented to this House. Indeed the paragraph starts ‘Without limiting the matters that may be taken into account …’. So I can draw, as a court, on a whole body of common law and turn my attention to that common law dealing with the issue of all reasonable steps.
But this parliament and this government when it pushes this bill through, or attempts to push this bill through, will be saying to the courts the next time that they have such an issue in front of them: ‘You will turn your attention specifically to these areas. It is the parliament’s intention that you as a judge study these specific areas and then you can look at the other issues of all reasonable steps’.
Now, this is a piece of social legislation. It is not just a small amendment to a bill. It is not a reaching to get something right as the Attorney-General would have had us believe in his all too brief second reading speech. The thing that I request the Attorney-General and the government of the day to do is that if they are going to hold true to their political beliefs about the rights of the workers and those sorts of things, that’s fine. I have no objection to them doing so. They are the elected government of the day. However, I say this: at least be honest, open and forthright about the approach you are taking and do not try and sneak in through a back door legislation which is far more sweeping than the government has indicated to any of the people concerned. When those people started to realise, after a bit of investigation, how sweeping and what sort of an effect this sort of legislation has had, I understand from my colleagues that the response has been somewhat different to: ‘Oh yeah, we can go along with that. Thanks for doing us a favour’.
In its current form I cannot bring myself to support this. I have discussed the amendments that the shadow Attorney-General is bringing forward. I think that they are reasonable amendments and I ask the Attorney-General to turn a benevolent eye upon those amendments in an effort to reconcile some of these issues.
______________________
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Matter of Privilege – Request for Referral
by the Member for Greatorex
Matter of Privilege – Request for Referral
by the Member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that I have received a letter from the member for Greatorex, pursuant to Standing Order 83, in which he raises a matter of privilege and seeking precedence of other business for the purposes of moving a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
In considering the matter, I sought further detail as to the matter which Dr Lim considered constituted an alleged contempt. Dr Lim has provided me with further detail. I advise this Assembly that I have considered Dr Lim’s request and taken into account the guidelines provided for me by resolution of the Assembly dated 23 May 1996.
I have determined the motion should be given precedence of other business tomorrow.
_______________________
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak on the bill before the House, the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 2001. As the minister has previously stated in this House in his second reading speech, this amendment will clarify the existence of vicarious liability under the principal act, a simple principal.
As many of the members in this House would acknowledge, Justice Mildren in his decision in Pinecot Pty Ltd v Anti-Discrimination Commission, determined there was no vicarious liability under the Anti-Discrimination Act. This bill, under section 105, clarifies the existence of vicarious liability of employees and agents. This amendment is required as it is now unclear how, under existing provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act, liability for actions of employers operate.
Due to the recent Supreme Court action in Pinecot Pty Ltd v Anti-Discrimination Commission, a shadow has been cast on the presumption that the existing Anti-Discrimination Act did implicitly provide for vicarious liability. It has been accepted by both public sector and private sector employees that they operated their general business on the presumption that the act the existence of vicarious liability. It has become obvious to one and all that Justice Mildren in the Pinecot case found the act did not include vicarious liability for employers. This Labor government has taken positive steps in the amendment to safeguard all the employers and employees. This fact is important to all Territorians as good law and good legislation is fundamental to the principles that support our democracy in a unique and diverse community.
At present, as a result of the Pinecot case and the current appeal to the Federal Court, the situation is still unclear. Therefore, the principles that Territory employers and employees believed were contained within the Anti-Discrimination Act, that incorporated the principles of vicarious liability with respect to sex, race and disability discrimination, have become unclear. The bill will clarify that matter in a fair and just manner, protecting the rights of both the employer and employee. Subsection (2) of the proposed new section 105 requires an employer to take all reasonable steps in order to have a defence for a vicarious liability. This same or similar provision exists in anti-discrimination legislation in all other Australian jurisdictions.
This government has taken up concerns with section 105(3) of the large and small employers that may have difficulty in showing they have taken reasonable steps to protect themselves. As the minister has alluded to, the subsection is unique in Australia. Its effect is to create a real difference to employers who have used reasonable diligence to develop anti-discrimination policies and procedures. It also gives consideration to the individual position of each employer, their financial circumstances and the number of employees. So, like many members of this House, I believe prevention is better than cure. Section 105(3) encourages employers to make their workplace discrimination free. It clearly rewards employers who take such positive steps.
Another example of this government’s agenda to lead by example is the proposed section 105(4) which is a further innovation in Australia’s anti-discrimination law. It allows the commission to apportion the payment of compensation between employer and worker after hearing what steps were taken to prevent the prohibited conduct. Under proposed section 105(4) it allows the commissioner to take into account what steps an employer did take even if these steps were not sufficient to create a full defence under proposed section 105(2).
In summary, I and other members of this government look forward to continuing the steps taken by the minister in creating goodwill for the benefit for all Territorians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I came here today supporting the direction in which this bill has been put forward but, having listened to the debate, I do have some concerns.
I had some discussions with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry when I was investigating ramifications of this bill and I presumed, talking to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, that I was actually also covering all business associations, but obviously that has not occurred. I am concerned that if business associations – because, after all, this affects employers -have not had adequate time to discuss this bill, then we should perhaps allow this bill to sit for a bit longer because they are the people in the end who are going to have to use this bill.
I will just make a few points. I suppose one of my favourite topics is bills that you cannot read and the phrase ‘vicarious liability’ took me a fair while to understand. As it is aimed at people like employers, I sometimes wonder why - I know lawyers love these words and there have been books written on vicarious liability - why we could not just use the terminology ‘substituted liability’ which is what ‘vicarious’ really means. It is not a common term and I think that sometimes laws, where they are being applied to certain groups of people, at least should be readable by those certain groups of people.
An issue that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry also raised was that in section 105(2), they did have concerns about the words ‘all reasonable steps’ and that also occurs in (3). They were concerned that the word ‘all’ could be taken as ad infinitum. They would have preferred just ‘reasonable steps’.
I also take into account - the opposition raised the issue of, I think in subsection (3) - that the words ‘the following matters are to be considered’ to be perhaps ‘may be considered’. First of all, most people would agree that we should have no discrimination in the workforce. It is a matter of how we put that into a document, in legislation, that covers that as well as does not impose great burdens especially on small business.
I suppose I have had the opportunity of working for myself so the only person I can discriminate against is myself so it did not matter. But I also worked in local hardware for about 14 years so I have worked under a boss, and working on the Litchfield Shire Council, I was the boss. So I have had fair range of the different ways one can be employed. Certainly with small business which only have a few people, and especially where businesses are flat out - for instance, in the hardware business where I worked, you would work from approximately 8.15 in the morning until about a 6.15 in the evening with very few breaks. A lot of these nice things written in here you certainly never had time for, and you worked seven days a week because that was the sort of industry it was.
I am not sure there are any guarantees in here for small business, if a matter went to court, that they could be hauled over the coals for some of these things. I know it deals with the number of workers and agents of the person, the financial circumstances, but much of that is up for interpretation. For that reason I think this should go back to those people who have to use it, bearing in mind that both sides support the concept that there should not be discrimination in the workforce. But, as I said, the employers are the ones who are going to have to deal with this and, if we have lived this long without these changes, I would ask the government would they consider perhaps delaying it until the next sitting of parliament.
I do make the point that just because the Chamber of Commerce and Industry had not passed this on does not mean that members do not have a responsibility to pass this act on to business associations and to employers. I think that perhaps some of us have let our local business associations down by not making them aware that this bill was going before parliament. We all have a responsibility on any act where we know that that act will affect people in our community. We should really take it to those people and ask them for their opinion. I cannot necessarily go out and blame the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I just say that in this case some of our members of parliament perhaps did not quite do their job in the sense of taking this to those various groups and making them aware.
Madam Speaker, bearing in mind I support the direction in which it is going, I just feel at the moment that it needs some more discussion and I would ask the government to defer it until that discussion is held.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I participate in this debate on behalf of the business community, particularly the small business community of the Northern Territory. The member for Nelson should not be too apologetic if he believes that he may have been able to better represent the business community. And he would have been able to had the second reading speech in relation to this legislation been a clear statement of intent of the legislation. If you now read the second reading speech, it is almost impossible – well, it is impossible - to extract from the second reading speech the real extent of this legislation. That is to say there is no clear statement in the second reading speech as to the impact that this legislation will have on the small business community.
From the Parliamentary Record of 27 to 29 November, page 453, I quote:
- Subsection (3) of the proposed new section 105 clearly sets out the matters that may be included
when the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is considering whether an employer has taken all
reasonable steps. These matters include actions such as the provision of anti-discrimination
training and equal opportunity management plans. The proposed new subsection recognises
that not all employers have the same resources. The subsection also provides that the
commissioner may consider the size and financial positions of an employer when considering
whether they have taken all reasonable steps.
Now, there is nothing in the second reading speech from the minister to suggest that this is going to impact on small business and in future, if this legislation is passed, that small business will have to do all those things as set out in the subsection. It has only been of recent times that the real impact on small business has come to light. Indeed, can I say that that is not conclusive even in terms of the legislation. I quote from the bill, vicarious liability, section 105(2),:
- Subsection (1) does not apply if a person shows that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent
the worker or agent from doing the act referred to in that subsection
and then (3):
- For the purposes of subsection (2) and without limiting the matters that may be taken into account in
determining whether the person has taken all reasonable steps, the following matters are to be considered …
Now, they are matters that can be taken into consideration, but it does not say that that is the extent of the matters that may be taken into consideration. Nor does it say the extent and effort which any particular business has to put into those particular points. That is to say, a business may well indeed establish a process or develop and implement an equal opportunity management plan, but no business is going to know whether that plan or the other actions that they take so prescribed in this bill are going to be adequate until after the event. That is to say, the business will be in trouble before they know whether or not the actions that they have taken have been adequate or will be considered to be adequate by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner and others in the event that something occurs.
It is all a very flowery process that the government is proposing here. I understand that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry has accepted these, although they have some shortcomings as the member for Nelson and others have alluded to. It concerns me that the Chamber, on behalf of small business in the Northern Territory, if they have supported this legislation, because in my discussions with small businesses over the past week in relation to this, I did not find anyone, any small business, that was happy with it. Either the Chamber has been unable to convey the message adequately to its members because of the inadequacy of the information provided by the government or, indeed, it has fallen short on its job. I must say that it does not seem to do that very often on behalf of its members, but I could understand why they may have done it on this occasion.
This legislation in my view, and that of small business in the Northern Territory, is part of the social agenda of this government of which we will see much over the next few years and which will impact very considerably not only on the business community of the Northern Territory but indeed on all aspects of life in the Northern Territory. But that is life under a Labor government, and this government has the ability and responsibility, indeed, in terms of its own being to proceed with those agendas. But it does not mean that in this case the business community should accept them as presented. The clear message from the business community is that they do not accept this and you can see why.
The other component of this legislation, and getting back to the second reading speech, is that apart from the particular case that is before courts, and the first components of this bill are aimed at addressing, and which the opposition generally supports, there is no reason for proceeding with the other components in terms of subsection (3) in the proposed new section 105. There is no assertion in the second reading speech, or no reason in the second reading speech, as to why these components are considered necessary. What’s broken? What has to be fixed apart from addressing the social agenda of the Labor government? And if that is their intent and their desire, well so be it, they are in government, but express it - express it openly. They are a government that in opposition said that they would be open, honest and accountable to the people of the Northern Territory. In that regard, if they are going to introduce social reforms of this kind then it is appropriate that they should, in second reading speeches and other documentation that they use to advise Territorians about legislation which they are introducing and intending to pass in this House, be open, honest and accountable with people, and particularly the business community.
We heard from a government backbencher just before lunch that the government is supportive of small business and that they have the concerns of small business in mind and that they want to help them. Well, this will not help small business. The costs will be considerable, and if you look at those in terms of training every employee, look at it in the context of a butcher shop, any retail trader, I suppose, who employs four or five people. How many hundreds of those are there across the Northern Territory who will, in future, have to provide a training program for each and every employee? Again, the vagueness of this second reading speech and the intentions of the government in this regard don’t help. Does that pertain to part time and casual employees, or does it only pertain to full time employees? What is the extent of the impost in that regard to those employers? The other aspects that are considered to be matters that could assist a business if they come into problems, the financial circumstances. Well, what are the financial circumstances?
Madam Speaker, either you say that the financial circumstances of a business, if they were confronted by the application of this legislation and the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner came along and said: ‘I want to assess your business in relation to compliance with this piece of legislation’, then you get down to part (d), the financial circumstances of the person or of the business. How is that assessed? Under whose assessment and criteria are those considerations undertaken and decided upon? Because, I dare say, you would find a vast difference of opinion between the person in the legislation and the commissioner, who would have quite different expectations and outcomes in relation to what he was trying to achieve as opposed to a person in the particular business.
For the government to proceed with legislation of this kind, with those inbuilt vagaries, and to leave those vagaries to the discretion of the Commissioner for Anti-Discrimination, or a court, and to place small business in a position where their futures might be at stake in having to satisfy this criteria, not knowing precisely what the extent of the criteria is, not knowing whether this is the extent list. That is, is this the full list or would a commissioner on some occasion come along and say: ‘Well, yes you fulfil (a), (b), (c), (d). Well, you are pretty well off in my view, and of course the number of workers and agents of the person. Now, notwithstanding that you have done pretty well with that, this is in my estimation a very healthy and vibrant business. I would have thought that you as a business might have been able to go beyond these criteria and been able to look after your employers just that little bit better’, and so find against them in terms of meeting this criteria. If that is what this government thinks about looking after business and being a friend of business and being aware of what the business community needs are and how they have to respond to these matters, they have an entirely different understanding as to what business is all about than I have, and certainly it conflicts with what the business community thinks.
Further to that, we have a number of other questions as regards the simple appropriateness of this, and whether or not it raises the question as regards these vagaries. I hope that the minister has been taking note of these concerns, because I know the business community is interested in his answers, and we will certainly be taking the opportunity to convey his answers to them. I also draw his attention to the fact, and I reaffirm now, the requests that have been made by other members, that the opportunity be taken by government - bearing in mind the vagaries of this legislation and the impost that it will have on the small business community - that the government defers this legislation until the next sittings so that business can be better informed and we can get a full and thorough response, knowing what the extent of the legislation is and the impact that it will have on business, rather than, as we have only over the last few weeks, come across just what it is, by accident virtually, because it is not clearly demonstrated in the legislation or the second reading speech.
So given that there has been no clear statement of intent, given that there definitely is concern abroad in the business community, and those concerns extend beyond the matters that I have raised. There is also the very vexed question in the business community of red tape and this imposes yet another layer of red tape on a business. They have to prepare a plan. They have to ensure that that plan is implemented. They then have to undertake the training, and I daresay they are going to have to have some form of annual review or reporting to, if for no other reason - if it is not implicitly in this legislation - but to be able to demonstrate, should the time arise, that they have done what is required of them under this legislation and that, over a period of years, they can demonstrate their continued application of it.
There are many layers of complexity, many layers of cost and impost on the business community, both in terms of the time and the cost of the training programs and preparing the plans and implementing them; assessing it each year; doing a report and being able to demonstrate that their processes are not only being introduced but applied on an annual basis. Then, of course, you have to take into account the hidden costs: that is, the lost time and productivity of the employees whilst they are being trained and made aware of their requirements and responsibilities in relationship to their employment. Of course, the same applies to the employer.
There are many facets of this legislation that have not been apparent. I do not believe they have been fully understood by the Chamber for the reasons that I have stated, and for the same reasons that people like the member for Nelson and myself and others did not understand it, because it was not adequately explained. In fact, you do have to ask the question: was it the intent of this government to conceal the real objectives of this legislation and the real extent of it? Because, in reading the second reading speech and knowing now what the extent of the impact is, you can ask no other question but that. Why was it that the minister in his second reading speech did not clearly enunciate the full extent and impost of this legislation on the small business community, and why was it that he was afraid to do so?
Whether or not it was a social agenda of the Labor government or whether or not he is doing it for other reasons - regardless what the reasons of government are for introducing this legislation - the business community and Territorians generally deserve to know what the extent of it is. If they were given the opportunity to understand that they would not care too much about what the reasons are, but they certainly would then have an opportunity to evaluate it fully.
In that context, if the members on the government benches were able to make reference to this legislation in the context of knowing what the small business community wanted and being able to assess those needs and to work with them, I would draw their attention to the Yellow Pages Business Index which is being released today, because it certainly does not demonstrate any understanding or commitment to the business community by this government. They have seen the acceptance of government go from 41% in August last year down to 5% in November of last year, and to now be at a negative 12% in relation to the acceptance of this government.
Mr Henderson: But not important enough for one question.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, you can hear, yourself, from the interjections from the minister who is responsible for business just how sensitive he is in relation to this matter, and rightly so, because it is a very concerning aspect of what the attitudes of the business community are. Those attitudes are not going to be helped one iota by this legislation.
In closing my remarks, I ask the minister if he will address the many issues that have been raised by me and other members in contributing to this debate. I sincerely request that the government does defer the passage of this legislation for this sittings and put it back until the next sittings, so that the business community can be fully appraised of its extent and of the impact that it will have on the business community, in fairness to them, and the government keeping to its honest, open and accountable promise given when it was the opposition, as to their practices when it would be in government. That is not reflected in the second reading speech and the content of this particular bill.
Ms Martin: Did you have a briefing on this, Mike? You had a briefing on the bill?
Mr REED: So, the Chief Minister is now interjecting and I ask her, rather than interjecting, if she could give the interests of the business community a little thought …
Ms Martin: So when did your concern start? No, you’re lazy.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Chief Minister!
Mr REED: … and defer this legislation so they can consider it in a right and proper context, being fully informed and being able to respond. And at the end of the day, if they do respond in a way that is supportive to this legislation, which I doubt, then okay, the process would have been worthwhile. But there is no need for this legislation to be rushed through. The particular case which is being addressed by it and the main reason for the introduction of it, I now understand has gone to appeal. I will say no more of that because it is in the courts and it would be inappropriate to discuss it directly. But it is my understanding that that case has gone to appeal.
There is no need for rushing this legislation through today. The opposition will be making very clear to the business community that we made these very strong representations on their behalf because of the serious impact this is going to have on their businesses. For that reason, we implore the government to defer the legislation for passage in May if, and when, the business community comes forward with its support.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it has certainly been a fulsome debate, and I welcome that from the House. Our policy of bringing the real business of the House forward to earlier in the day is certainly resulting in some very good debates on bills.
Before I deal with the members’ contributions in detail and individually, let’s go back a couple of steps to the context of this bill. For all the apparent shortcomings of the second reading speech, it does mention a very important fact and that is that there is not one Anti-Discrimination Act out there, but there are two. There is the Commonwealth act administered under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the race, sex and disability legislation; and there is the Territory level Anti-Discrimination Act. The Commonwealth act is extant and is operational and has no limits on the vicarious liability settlements under their legislation. It also has no defences for a business which is involved in a vicarious liability case. That is the very important ‘other’ that we have to judge this legislation, and the timing of this legislation, against.
The recent case which has now been appealed certainly indicated - I think as the member for Macdonnell said earlier in the debate - that there are limits on the operation of vicarious liability within the Northern Territory act, to the extent that the employer actually has to be shown to be actively encouraging contravention of anti-discrimination provisions, rather than simply being a party to an offence when it has been alleged. The judge certainly casts doubt to what everyone had assumed, was that vicarious liability did exist in the Northern Territory act. For 10 years people proceeded on that basis, often to settle before a court action, on the basis that they believed that vicarious liability was available under our act. Justice Mildren’s decision has, for the first time, confirmed that there are real doubts that that exists in our legislation, and also casts quite a degree of ambiguity on the principal agent responsibilities of an employer, which is another context in which liability may be carried.
So, what is going to happen now? Given that we have this dual system of Commonwealth and Territory law, where is someone going to go if they believe that they have suffered some jeopardy within the operation of a business or an organisation? They are going to go to our act where there is now real doubt that it carries the vicarious liability. Or are they going to go to the Commonwealth legislation where there is no doubt that vicarious liability is an allowable situation, and where the limits on claims are limitless? Our act carries an upper limit of $60 000, so it is quite clear that an alleged victim of discrimination will more than likely head off to the Commonwealth act and take action under that.
To be talking about this change that we are talking of bringing into the House today as being an extra impost on business is being a touch dishonest, given that if you are going around talking to these unnamed businesses, including the Darwin Regional Business Association which is an affiliate of the Chamber. If you are going around claiming that the 700 members of the Chamber have got it wrong and that these other businesses that we are not hearing the names of have a different view on it, then I hope in the consultations you claim to have had with them, you were very clear about the fact that they are subject to action under the Commonwealth act as well as the Northern Territory act. The Commonwealth act carries infinitely more potential jeopardy for business, and no defences. No defences against these actions built into the act. They are on their own; they have to argue that they took some steps to prevent the discrimination. There are no guidelines within the Commonwealth act that would help them in their task.
I want to move on now to the particular matters that members have raised, and I will give a response to each one in turn. The shadow Attorney-General proposed an amendment to section 105(3) to omit ‘are to be considered’ and substitute ‘may be considered’. In our view it has the effect of weakening the reference to the criteria set out in section 105(3), subsections (a) to (e). This would mean that not only is consideration of the anti-discrimination training and so forth in 105(3)(a) to (c) not mandatory, but is also that consideration of the number of employees and financial circumstances of the employer in 105(3)(d) and (e) is also not mandatory. This could be seen as anti-employer because your plan to change the wording is doing the very things that you have been arguing are jeopardising business. You are actually removing the possibility that the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in a hearing can actually take into account the number and the size of the business, the financial position of the business, and many of the other areas that they might be able to prove in a hearing that they have actually achieved in terms of their anti-discrimination policies.
The current provision is not exclusive; preamble to section 105(3), ‘… without limiting the matters which may be taken into account …’ - the current provision allows for balance and certainty. It sets out the matters that may constitute reasonable steps, section 105(3)(a) to (c), and allows for consideration of the individual circumstances of each employer, 105(3)(d) and (e). The nature and scope of the training referred to in 105(3)(a) to (c) would be decided by reference to the financial circumstances and the number of employees as set out in 105(3)(d) to (e). That is why (d) and (e) are there; it all gets back to the use of the word ‘reasonable.’ Now, what might be reasonable in General Motors Holden would be totally unreasonable at the corner coffee shop. It is clear very small business is going to have a much more limited capacity to provide extensive training and planning and documentation in behind its management practices than a very large corporation – that is embodied in these provisions that we are putting forward today.
The second area, the proposed amendments to delete 105(3)(a) to (c), defeats a proposal first suggested by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry – you are going against 700 businesses in the Northern Territory by saying what suits them does not suit you, for some reason. The current provision provides guidance for employers as to the sort of steps that constitute reasonable steps. To delete them would lead to uncertainty for employers, and the need to test individual assertions case by case, hearing by hearing. Case law suggests that the development and implementation of steps are what constitutes reasonable steps; to specify them both makes this requirement explicit and certain.
The idea of inserting a new section 105(4)(c) - (c) takes into ‘… consideration the effect of the order on the viability of the person’s undertaking, establishment or service’. That is your proposed amendment. The amendment alters the nature of the award of compensation. The apportionment provisions of 105(4) allows for the apportionment of compensation to be made on the basis of probability; if an employer is found to be culpable and has to pay compensation in proportion with that degree of culpability, they should not be able to escape through crying poor. Given the apportionment provisions, if the amendment were to be accepted, then there would be no in-principle reason not to apply it to all respondents, including respondents that are directly liable.
The amendment says that the viability of an undertaking is more important than compensating for sexual harassment and other discrimination, despite a respondent’s culpability for that harassment, so it goes against the whole spirit of the act to have that in there. The amendment would drive complainants to use the Commonwealth legislation and bring the federal body into the lives of Territory employers.
Moving to the member for Araluen. The cost of training – you are correct to say that the cost of training is $70 per worker. The training is already necessary to give effect to the defences under the Commonwealth race, sex and disability legislation - it does not create an additional burden. It is unusual for a workplace to send all its workers on formal training. More normally, the management, lower, middle or upper, is sent on training and the general workforce is then made aware of the content of the anti-discrimination policy, and the management’s commitment to it. The cost is therefore likely to be considerably less than put forward.
The member for Macdonnell, essentially, was saying that I was being less than forthright in saying the bill clarified the existence of vicarious liability because the Pinecot case found there was no vicarious liability. Just to remind the member, the judgment of Justice Mildren came down two days after I gave the second reading speech in parliament. However, the bringing down of the judgment has changed nothing because in fact the judgment far from clearing up the situation as regards the Territory act has simply added to the uncertainties that are attached to it. In fact, we are now seeing that an appeal has been brought forward, and it would be unlikely that we are going to see any resolution through that court process until probably well into next year depending on how many steps are taken in it. It really makes the bringing forward of this legislation and the timing of this legislation even more relevant.
When I wrote to you on 31 January, in response to the issues that you raised, I pointed out to you that on further advice the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has issued appeal proceedings with respect to the decision of Mildren J in Pinecot. It is not yet clear whether this appeal will proceed, when it will be heard, and, of course, what the outcome will be. There is thus still considerable uncertainty.
I should also note that in this context the amending bill mirrors the liability provisions of the Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation that employers are already subject to. I pointed out to you, what I have reiterated in this debate and that is we are not dealing with just the Territory legislation here. We are dealing with the Territory legislation and its relationship to the Commonwealth legislation, and the fact that in the absence of a workable structure within our own legislation, inevitably people will go to the Commonwealth legislation. You really are bound under that situation to not look at jeopardy in terms of real or imagined jeopardy within our own legislation, but jeopardy given the two co-existing legislations that are available to plaintiffs who want to take action on an alleged discrimination. We have to be very clear about that, that we are not talking about an isolated piece of legislation existing unrelated to the Commonwealth.
The comments of both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were all about the consultation. You have to be a bit sceptical when people keep talking about this small business or these small businesses or this section of the small business community when we have gone to the peak body for business. This bill has been not only discussed at length with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry but, in fact, elements of it were actually proposed by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in response to some of the needs that they saw for their members.
In a perfect world, you would go to every one of the hundreds of the small, medium and large businesses in the Northern Territory, go round individually and say: ‘What do you think about this bill?’ Within the context of a government trying to get through a legislative program, it is a perfectly valid thing to go to the recognised peak body of a sector of the community, have thorough negotiations with them and then move to take the action that they agree to. That is what we have done and I would stand by our diligence in taking that step.
I will point out that the terminology and the structuring of the bill, particularly the use of ‘all reasonable steps’ is not new. It exists in other legislation around the country, Queensland amongst others. It is not new law; it is not law that is untested.
I would like to now conclude my remarks in response to the members contributions by again thanking them, but I want to take this opportunity to reiterate what I said in the last sittings. That is that we are putting forward in a very sincere way a process to allow all members of this House to have creative input to the formation of law within this Chamber. I have made it very clear that we have to be given time to check amendments to see what their legal and legislative force may be and their merit in terms of whether they critique some way the legislation we brought before the House. I do not feel any threat by that process; I think all 25 members of this House should be able and should be given a process to contribute to the formation of law within the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
I am very sincere about that and you will see later in these sittings that we will be adopting an amendment brought by the member for Macdonnell, and I thank him for his diligence in looking at that legislation. He has brought forward an issue of merit and we have had that evaluated. We believe it will improve the bill by including that reform in it, and I will be fulsome in my praise of him in raising that issue for us.
That is the process; that is what I have made very clear in previous sittings. That is why we will not be accepting the amendments that the shadow Attorney-General has put forward today for the very reason that we have not had any opportunity to get them evaluated. They have no merit on the first blush, but even if there was some merit in them, you have known this structure. You have had four months with this bill. You have had the opportunity at any stage to seek a briefing. You took the briefing two weeks ago, you brought these here on the floor of the House. We have no chance to respond to this and we therefore have no choice but to reject them.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Can I just point out that you two members have spoken during the second reading speeches.
Mr Elferink: Yes, sorry. I was worried about the committee stages, that’s all, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: We are up to that now.
In committee:
Mr CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether this is in order, but I would just like to thank the Attorney-General for the briefing. I forgot to mention that in my speech.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr MALEY: There is similar legislation all round Australia and we have heard the honourable member for Stuart talk about one of those pieces of legislation being the Commonwealth Anti-Discrimination Act. The very crux of the amendment, the requirement for the amendment, is really, in my view, completely contained in subparagraphs (1) and (2) which are probably an accurate example of what exists in other jurisdictions. If I can just labour the point for a moment - and I have to labour it because, for example, the member for Fannie Bay had a difficulty earlier trying to understand one portion of the legislation and not the other portion. If I could just explain that for the member for Fannie Bay’s benefit - the position of the opposition is that we support the principle contained in section 105(1) and (2). The difficulty arises with going on to the surplusage. So, if you can just stay with the agenda, the member for Araluen and I have both spoken - indeed, the other members of the opposition spoke quite vigorously. We support the clarifying of this vicarious liability aspect. The difficulty we have is in relation to the balance of the amendment being subparagraphs (2) and (4). Even dissecting it more than that, there are some subsections of subparagraphs (3) and (4) which we are quite happy with. That is why the amendment which I have tabled is in existence because, in our view, it would remedy those defects which are contained in the balance of the bill and we would then support it.
My question is, having regard to the legislation which exists in Victoria, the legislation that exists in Western Australia, the legislation that exists in New South Wales, the legislation that exists in South Australia and also the Anti-Discrimination Act of the ACT which stops at clauses (1) and (2), why did you instruct your counsel to draft the extra and confusing provisions contained in subsections (3) and (4)?
Dr TOYNE: The intent of the additional guidelines that are embodied in subsections (3) and (4) is to provide a framework in two senses. It is quite clearly stated in the second reading speech: the first is that it gives some structure to what are the types of reasonable steps that an employer may or may not have taken in terms of preventing the discriminatory behaviour in their organisation. That is where those five provisions give not only some of the areas of activity that you would expect to see there if an employer was actively working against discrimination in their business or organisation.
The (d) and (e) basically allow the hearing to scale what is reasonable to the size of the employment within the organisation concerned, which in turn then leads to subsection (4), where we wanted to ensure that the perpetrator, if there was discriminatory behaviour proven, was not let off scott free, that there was some apportionment of the compensation payment between the principal and the agent, the employer and the employee, according to the degree of culpability that the hearing finds in a particular case.
That, I believe, is a fair way in terms of the employer’s interest, simply because they have money and the perpetrator may not have amounts of money similar to the company, that there is still some expectation that the offender will bear some of the cost of compensation. That is why they are put there, and I am not resiling from this. This is new law, it is a new detail put into an anti-discrimination act for the very reason that it was suggested by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry against the practical issues that they have seen from their members in cases of this type, and it allows the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to take a much more detailed framework to the outcomes of the hearing.
Mr MALEY: Just so it is clear, you are saying that the only reason you have decided to step outside the framework which exists in other jurisdictions and have this new subparagraph (3), is that you were urged to do this by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry? And if that is the case, do you realise, if you have an objective look at this, that this is actually a burden upon employers? It is a burden because there are a number of matters which are to be considered, under common law in the other jurisdictions it is completely discretionary but you have taken the extra step and made it now compulsory. It is mandatory for the commission to take into account those matters. And, of course, there are some matters in subparagraphs (d) and (e) which employers would be happy about. But do you understand very specifically what you are doing?
There is no problem in other jurisdictions in determining what all reasonable steps could or may mean. You have taken the extra step of, despite the fact there is no Supreme Court judgment saying there is ambiguity, you have taken the extra step and imposed some mandatory obligations. Are you saying that this is a conscious decision by you and it was made only because of the recommendation made by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry? And having regard to the fact there seems to be no ambiguity in other states, where did the notion to make this mandatory come from?
Dr TOYNE: I can certainly debunk one of the assertions you just made, that there has been no difficulty in applying legislation elsewhere, both HREOC themselves and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry have reported immense difficulty in defining what are reasonable actions on the part of an employer in trying to prevent discrimination occurring within their sphere of influence.
These constant assertions that we are putting an impost on business, particularly small business, by these provisions: there are two imposts that can happen to a business regarding anti-discrimination provisions within our laws. One is a reactive one and one is a proactive one. What sort of impost are businesses potentially going to face if they do not carry out some reasonable program to prevent discrimination? You have all crossed your hearts over there, put your hand over your hearts and said: ‘We are dead against discrimination in the workplace’. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that employers are going to be left entirely defenceless in terms of the particular actions that they can take which will be deemed to be reasonable in a hearing? An employer could be very well meaning about trying to prevent discrimination, but they may not take action that is identifiable within a hearing when a complaint is lodged against them or against one of their workers.
What we are doing in this bill is to provide a set of guidelines that will not only apply in a hearing, but will be known to the employers so that they know where to go for safety, where they can build their defences against the potential action taken against them. That is the proactive side. If you want to leave businesses in a reactive mode where they are facing Commonwealth legislation, because that is where everyone is going to head now. The moment that court decision brought our own law into ambiguity everyone is going to be heading for HREOC. At HREOC they have no built defences as an employer, they will simply have to argue their case, situation by situation, and with no limit on the amount of compensation that is going to be awarded to the plaintiff. How can you say that there is no impost there for businesses at the moment, and that we are introducing some sort of new – what we are talking about here is building an insurance into businesses so that they do have some protection because they are following good management practices as regards to Anti-Discrimination Act.
You can say that businesses have some sort of other life where somehow these national and other laws do not apply to their behaviour because they are too small, they do not have the sort of money to deal with it. That is not the real world. These laws are out there, they are operating. It is much better for businesses to be in a proactive relationship with those laws than to simply be waiting there for the lightning strike to hit them fair on the crown of their head, and where they won’t be able to cope with the size of the action against them under the Commonwealth act. What we are providing them with is a protective framework on the side of the businesses that do take these responsibilities seriously and take advantages of the defences that we are offering within this act.
We are not introducing jeopardy, we are trying to save businesses from jeopardy, and what you are doing, whether it is well meaning or not, is going against not only our view about providing defences for business and a fair balance between the interests of the business and the interests of the potential victim of discrimination, but you are basically wanting to throw them back onto their own devices again. I do not see how you can possibly think that is helping.
Mr KIELY: Minister, I have a question with regards to training and the so-called impost alleged to be going down to employers in small business. I won’t cover the area of big business or national companies, or the large companies in town. I am pretty sure that they already conduct awareness sessions underneath the existing anti-discrimination legislation, because as we all know it is an offence to discriminate in the workplace. We know that it is an offence to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, age, religion, political affiliation, particularly political affiliation, because we sure would not have seen any of that go on in this town. These are all offences and these are things that all good employers make their staff aware of in the workplace. When you have a group of people working together it is important that they understand.
I have actually had the pleasure of being a trained harassment contact officer in one life, and I have actually been in and I have delivered information sessions, and let me say I have delivered anti-discrimination awareness sessions to groups of from three to five people who have been released from their workplace. These sessions have taken about no more than half an hour, I would say, to deliver. In that I have managed to go through, not the vicarious liability because we did not have that in our act, but I have managed to go through what the Anti-Discrimination Act means to the individual in the workplace and what is attached to it and their obligations. I have also gone briefly over the federal disability discrimination and race discrimination acts so the people did know about vicarious liability.
These sessions took about half an hour …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Sanderson, I might have to raise a point of order here. We are actually dealing with a specific amendment 11.1, and we …
Mr KIELY: That’s right. This does deal with that, because it talks about the alleged impost on small businesses when they have to release people, or to have people trained up so that they understand the aspects of vicarious liability.
Mr CHAIRMAN: You just need to make sure we focus on that in this debate.
Mr KIELY: Right, okay. So, the other part that the member for Araluen has mentioned in her concerns – and I admire her concerns for this because she is concerned about the mum-and-dad businesses, and what this means about mum and dad working at the local fish and chip shop, working at the local laundromat, just the two of them keeping that business going. They have a need for a training obligation here, so that each one of them is aware of vicarious liability under this act. Although it seems strange to me that, if you are in a relationship together, and it is at such a stage that you have to go to the commissioner and say to them: ‘Look, I wish to proceed under the Anti-Discrimination Act and vicarious liability here’. I would have thought that would be more family law. I would have thought it would be more family law, that if there is a couple working together, that they would use that. But I am not a trained lawyer. You are, you would know that when there is conflict in the workplace between husband and wife, that they will go to the anti-discrimination, won’t they? They won’t go to family law, will they? Lucky I am not a trained lawyer because I would not have seen that one! However …
Members interjecting.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Sanderson, amendment 11.1.
Mr KIELY: The question here is how long will it take a small business, anticipated, to make their people aware of these vicarious liability actions?
Mr ELFERINK: Evidently, Mr Chairman, the good minister has condescended not to answer the question. I can well understand why.
My issues on this matter come down to two points, and I am speaking, of course, directly in relation to clause 3, which is currently under interrogation. But, what concerns me on how we come to the point where we have come to discuss clause 3, is how did we come to this point in the first place?
I thank the honourable minister for his statements just as we went into committee stage, or immediately prior. He was quite right in pointing out that the bill was laid on the Table here two days prior to the Pinecot decision being handed down. Indeed, on the cover of the Pinecot decision it shows that the decision was handed down on 30 November.
Nevertheless, in his second reading speech the minister has referred to litigation of the Supreme Court, or did he have in mind at the time the Pinecot litigation which was still under consideration of the court? I was just wondering if you could advise me of that.
Dr TOYNE: I think it was clear that if the court was testing the existence or otherwise of vicarious liability within our act …
Mr Elferink: Was that the Pinecot decision that we are talking about?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, within that case …
Mr Elferink: I thank the minister for his …
Dr TOYNE: … that it was timely to bring forth the legislation, that’s all.
Mr ELFERINK: Sure. I thank the minister. So, at least we are talking about the Pinecot decision. I just ask the minister: subsequent to the handing down of the Pinecot decision, has he since read the decision?
Dr TOYNE: Yes. I think as living proof of that, there it is.
Mr ELFERINK: Have you read it?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, I have it in detail, along with my advisors. I certainly understand the core of the decision, yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Once again, I thank the minister. The reason that I have issue with it, is because he has repeatedly talked about a doubt that the decision raises. I think that Justice Mildren is quite clear in handing down his decision that there was no doubt. I draw the honourable minister’s attention to page 30 of that decision:
It would have been a simple matter for the legislature to have expressly provided for the liability
of principals or corporations for the acts of their servants or agents. They did not do so and I think
that in the circumstances it must be inferred that the omission to do so was deliberate.
This was already in the minds of the Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General and the people who advise him, because he handed down a bill based on the issue before Pinecot because he knew, or it was reasonable to assume, what the decision of Justice Mildren was going to be. The decision of Justice Mildren was always going to be the decision that Justice Mildren handed down. I think it was clear from the arguments before Justice Mildren that he would have had very little choice but to go down the path that he chose to go down, because the act was structured in such a way that vicarious liability was indeed not in doubt, but vicarious liability did not exist under the construction of the act.
That does not prevent the act from operating in such a fashion as to hold an employer directly responsible for the actions of one of his employees. I draw the minister’s attention to page 29 of the decision:
In general terms, the ‘course of employment’ is said to encompass such unauthorised acts by the servant as
can be regarded as an unauthorised mode of performing an authorised task. It is hard to envisage how, in
the usual case an act of sexual harassment could be other than a ‘frolic of his own’: see the discussion in
Fleming on Torts …
That is the direction Mildren take us in. What has happened here is that there is a case before the court which the minister became aware of, understood into what direction the case was going and, rather than dealing with issues of doubt, he was dealing with a fact, and the fact of the matter was that vicarious liability did not exist. So the minister has come into to this Chamber claiming doubt and, as a consequence of making such a claim, has said: ‘We’re going to do the right thing and introduce vicarious liability’. My issue is not with vicarious liability. My issue is with the process that the minister chose to pursue in relation to bringing this matter forward.
In the second reading speech, what he has done is made it quite clear that he seems to be - or that he is certainly under the impression – that he is doing business a favour, which will soon take me to my second issue in relation to clause 3. The fact of the matter is that the minister has moved, prior to the decision being handed down - which is entirely his right - to deal with an issue raised in the court, which is not a problem. My issue with it is that, in bringing clause 3 of the bill forward in the fashion that he has done, and attaching to it a second reading speech which was hardly clear in terms of its intent, what he has tried to do is set out through effective deception, to build up a vicarious liability that simply did not exist in the act.
So, rather than saying to us: ‘We have a problem with this, people of the Northern Territory. We believe in vicarious liability and we are going to bring it forward as introducing vicarious liability under the Anti-Discrimination Act’. I have no problem with that. But what they have done is they tried to us a back door and I am concerned about that, because it means that the people out there that he refers to in the letter that he sent me - organisations such as the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry - may have been labouring under the misapprehension under the minister’s second reading speech, which was available immediately after it being laid on the Table, that he was clarifying some doubt - where in actual fact no doubt existed. No doubt existed. It was quite clear that the act did not extend to vicarious liability.
So, for that reason alone, I would suggest that the member for Nelson, indeed, your suggestion, that the matter be allowed to lay on the Table until it is revisited, and so it is seen in a proper light, should be allowed to occur. I do not think that we will be endangering the safety of Territorians by not allowing this to lay on the Table for further discussion at a later stage.
Now, that takes me to my second issue in relation to clause 3, and that is the actual structure of the defences, as the minister refers to them, that are built into clause 3. In the letter that the minister sent to me he refers to the indicia which are built into clause 3. As we have already heard expressed from the shadow Attorney-General, those indicia, if this is passed into law will have to be considered by the court. And he calls them ‘defences’. Be that as it may, they will provide a defence if those indicia are proved by the people who are being questioned in relation to this issue.
My problem is this, is that in subsection (3), ‘… without limiting the matters that maybe taken into account in determining whether the person has taken all reasonable steps, the following matters are to be considered …’. The following matters are then listed down, (a), (b), (c), (d) and (d) which of course I am sure that the minister is going to correct. But those he has said at the outset without limiting the matters so that there are other indicia which a discrimination commissioner or a court may turn their attention to in determining what are all reasonable steps. The very structure of subsection 3 would of course force a court to actually turn their attention to the particular clauses outlined. Which indicia has the minister omitted to turn his attention to? What other indicia are known in common law to the minister and why has he chosen to rely on those five at the exclusion of all others?
There are large bodies of rulings on these particular issues in other jurisdictions. Those indicia must be very well established by this stage and the minister was quite clear in his letter to me that unlike other legislation in other jurisdictions more meaning will be given to these defences. Why does he choose these indicia over the large body of indicia that are available to other jurisdictions? It seems to me that we would be actually operating contrary to the useful outcomes of justice if we were going to lay more weight on particular indicia when there is an enormous body of law which any Anti-Discrimination Commissioner or court could turn their attention to at another point.
I am no expert on these matters, Mr Chairman, however once again it is one of those issues that hasn’t been properly explored, hasn’t been explained in the second reading speech and therefore should lay on the Table in this House until such time as all participants, not just the NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry, get a chance to revisit this issue and as a consequence of revisiting that issue make some submissions to the government.
Dr TOYNE: I am getting a lot of indicias here about how this debate is going. I have just learnt what it means – indicators - doesn’t it? Yeah. I love dictionary games.
Let’s deal with the Pinecot case; it is on appeal. Like all appeals it could have several outcomes. It could be that the judgment is overturned, modified, confirmed. One of the possible outcomes is that the appeal could result in vicarious liability being admitted as a possibility in our legislation with no defences available to it.
Mr Elferink: But we don’t know that, do we?
Dr TOYNE: We don’t know that. That is precisely right, and at the time this legislation was first introduced into the House we did not know then either. We did not know what Mildren’s judgment would be and as a prudent government, as we did with the Bradley legislation, the Chief Magistrate legislation, we had to prepare a legislative response if a court process looked like it might have effects on the interests that have been dealt with under legislation and under policy. It was prudent for us as a government at that stage to introduce legislation. The situation has not changed because the uncertainty in the court process is still there and still offers up any possibility in regards to the existence of the vicarious liability in our legislation.
We intend, for that reason, to proceed to provide, certainty in our act, so that businesses here can take up this structure with certainty, with the knowledge of what types of activities they will need to engage in to build the protection that they will need against vicarious liability claims against them.
My colleague, the member for Sanderson, has indicated that it is not that hard. I have had it pointed out here that there are educational tools available to small businesses from the Anti-Discrimination Commission here. There is a plain English with explanatory notes of the actual act. There are videos advertising rights and responsibilities that are available both in English and Aboriginal languages, and the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has an educational officer available to train employers. I really think that you are overstating the impost that this might make on small business. No one is saying is that it is not a responsibility. It is not a new responsibility. A prudent business would also want to do this because of the existence of the Commonwealth act in its present form.
I really do not have that much more to say on the points that you have raised. In fact, generally on the points that have been raised through the course of this debate, I am beginning to feel that we have dealt with them, and I wonder whether it is time to bring on the amendments.
Mr ELFERINK: I asked the minister quite explicitly in terms of indicia and apologise for my mispronunciation of it. The reason I specifically asked that is because at a later time where there is ambiguity a court may refer to the second reading debates. I want to hear from the minister the indicia that he might see has included in the matters not being limited by the subsection, and I would like to know why he is specifically concentrating on the five that he has outlined at the exclusion of others.
Dr TOYNE: It is not for me as a minister to personally choose the …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: Let me finish. … the direction that was taken in frame working what might be reasonable steps came from a significant consultation between officers in my department and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In that group you have both practical business experience, the people who know what is involved at ground level in running business, and what would be practical to do in that situation and, on the other hand, people who are experienced in drafting legislation and assessing the action of one act against the body of law as a whole. They are the people with the expertise to make these judgments, not me. I have brought it in here with confidence because I have confidence in those people. If you believe that the role of a minister is to be personally expert on every matter that comes to you, it is a misreading.
The purpose of having a whole department full of people and access and a network of consultation that we carry out with the interest groups in the community is to assemble the expertise needed to make these proposals valid. That is where it has come from. I am not claiming any personal expertise if that is what your asking. It was not my choice to put those five things in there. It came out of an appropriate consultation with the people who do have the detailed knowledge.
Mr MALEY: You talk about these first three criteria; having them there to protect business. Why then didn’t you consider through the Chamber of Commerce and Industry or through an education program making sure that businesses are aware these are things they can do to avoid liability as opposed to enshrined in the legislation and exposing business to a sanction if they do not comply? Why didn’t you go down the other path of education through the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, through this consultation as opposed to reducing it to writing and putting it in the legislation?
Dr TOYNE: This assumption that there is no sanction there in the present situation, that businesses are in jeopardy as we stand right now unless they have some defence against a vicarious liability action against them; this provides the framework for building a defence. We are not increasing jeopardy. We are actually offering the means by which a business can lower the target area that they would be offering to a vicarious liability action. These are pro-business provisions provided by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I can appreciate the touching concerns of the members opposite in relation to this piece of legislation, but it is one piece of legislation before this House. They have had since November last year when this bill was tabled in this Assembly to bring these concerns, if they were serious concerns and not get in here grandstanding at the 11th hour, to bring their concerns, if they were serious about them, to the Attorney-General for him to address.
We have seen this too many times in relation to the legislation. The same with amendments; they pop up today. They never brought them to the attention of the Attorney-General before. I suggest if they are serious with their amendments, they are serious about their concerns in this legislation, get on with it.
Mr MALEY: The legislation is simple. The amendments are incredibly straightforward. If the members on the other side of the House do not have the capacity to understand what we are talking about, and amending the word ‘are’ to ‘may’, then I have serious reservations about the minister’s capacity to carry out his job.
These are simple amendments. There is nothing difficult and you can hide behind all the grandstanding and glaring and pointing and carrying on, but it is a disgrace if you genuinely are of the view that you have not had an opportunity to properly consider this. These are basic changes to a new piece of legislation which are clear on the face of them. It is a disgrace that you hold yourself out to be the number one law man if you cannot grasp that.
Mr STIRLING: What is a disgrace is this guy coming in here, grandstanding in the fashion he has. Before lunch, we had four speakers on that side. He jumps up as the shadow Attorney-General, puts a view; is immediately contradicted by his Leader of the Opposition. The assistant shadow Attorney-General, the member for Araluen, on the back seats gets up and gives another view partly in support, and then the member for Macdonnell who we rarely know what position he is coming from. They have a responsibility before they get into this House to debate legislation, to have caucused on it, to have got their views, to have briefings, to have gone back after their briefings, to canvass what amendments they want to put and if they are serious about the amendments, to get them across to the government for consideration.
The former government never allowed amendments from the opposition on the floor of the House for good reason. They challenged us every time, if we were serious about amendments, to get them up there and get them to the Attorney-General so he could have a look. I suggest they are simply grandstanding, they are simply wasting the time of this Assembly. If they are serious about their amendments, get on with it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I just make a point that if the questions now are repetitive, I will not allow them. We have been going over the same – we are only dealing with clause 11.1 which considers the difference between the sentences ‘are to be considered’ and ‘may be considered’. That is what we are talking about. If there is no new argument about that, I will not allow them to be asked.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I must respond to the Deputy Chief Minister. I point out to the Deputy Chief Minister that I wrote a letter to the minister shortly after the matter was laid on the Table. It took him six weeks to reply to me. He says in the bottom of the letter that he would be pleased to arrange a briefing for me and in fact he requested the Anti-Discrimination Commission do so. No such briefing is forthcoming. We can introduce what amendments we like when we please, and if you do not like it, make sure that you keep up your end of the deal.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I believe we are moving off the subject. The question is related to clause 3, amendment 11.1. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question – put and negatived.
Amendments 11.2, 11.3 and 11.4, by leave, taken together:
Mr MALEY: In your earlier statements, you said that by reducing these provisions to writing you would be somehow protecting business. Are you serious when you say that, when you clearly state in subparagraph (3): ‘… and without limiting the matters that are to be taken into account …’, or – if you pay attention - all the matters which exist in common law in all the other states, all the law applied, so all these indicia are considered, the 17 of them, what you have done - do you realise this? - you have specifically picked out three or four of them, you have given them more weight and you have made it compulsory for the commissioner or for a court to consider them. Do you realise what you have done? You have gone from the situation where it was not compulsory, you have chosen these three socially - part of your political agenda - you have put them in the act and you have made it compulsory. Do you realise what you have done?
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move that the question be put.
Question – put and passed.
Question - that the amendments be agreed to - put and negatived.
Mr MALEY: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 11.5 standing in my name. I will take it slowly so the member for Fannie Bay and the member for Nhulunbuy can understand this. The question is to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. This particular provision is not complicated; it is only two lines long and if you read it over lunch time, you will read that it is clearly something that is an advantageous to business. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry supports this provision. It is lifted almost word perfectly from the Workplace Relations Act and all it does is allow the commissioner, once there has been a finding of a contravention of the act occurred, to take into consideration how much money the business or the person has when awarding the costs. This is not unreasonable. You do not have to have a minister for health working brief to determine whether this should be taken into account. This is simple. This is straight forward. It is a basic subparagraph and all it does is enable the commissioner to look at the financial circumstances of the business or the person before they make an order.
In light of what you said about accepting what the Chamber of Commerce and Industry wanted in relation to subparagraph (3), the Chamber of Commerce and Industry also endorsed this provision and in this situation, I am urging you to consider it and if not, why not?
Dr TOYNE: I will deal with this very quickly because I think we have had a pretty fulsome discussion including that point in the second reading debate and earlier in this committee stage debate and you have plenty on Hansard of what you think about all this.
In reference to the words that you are suggesting are being taken out of the Workplace Relations Act, this is used there in relation to orders for termination and reinstatement. There is no reference to these words in relation to financial orders or orders for compensation. So to lift a body of words from legislation out of a context that has nothing to do with what we are talking about is not exactly an honest practice.
Mr Chairman, I move that the question be put.
Question - put and passed.
Question – that the amendment be agreed to – put and negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I should make a point here that there is a typographical error. In clause 105(3), there are two (d)s.
Dr TOYNE: Yes, the (d) to an (e), Mr Chairman.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That will be changed in the printing.
The question now is that the bill be reported without an amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: Point of order, Mr Chairman. There is an amendment and that is simply the lettering change for sake of completeness.
Mr CHAIRMAN: That is a Clerk’s amendment. I will ask that again. The question now is that the bill be reported without an amendment.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 10
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 Mills
Ms Martin Mr Reed
Ms Scrymgour Mr Wood
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion of Censure
Move Motion of Censure
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion of censure against the member for Goyder for misleading this Assembly by referring to a set of minutes which, when subsequently tabled, were found not to be minutes and a record of proceedings at all but rather an agenda.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Censure of Member for Goyder
Censure of Member for Goyder
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, earlier this afternoon, the member for Goyder asked the following question of the Attorney-General:
- Mr MALEY to MINISTER for JUSTICE and ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Madam Speaker, for the sake of fairness and perhaps to jolt the independent memory of the minister
for Justice, I seek to place before the House minutes of a meeting which occurred on 23 January 2002
between representatives from Correctional Services and the minister in which a number of matters were
addressed including, and on the second page specifically, ministerial interference in an operational
matter and the fact that this interference is based upon racial grounds.
I ask that the minister for Justice peruse that second page and I ask him once again after he has looked
at that document, the minutes of that meeting …
Fairly clear, Madam Speaker, twice in the space of a few lines, in asking his question of the minister for Justice and Attorney-General this afternoon, he has twice referred to a document as ‘minutes’.
He was seeking to table a copy of those so-called minutes and, at first glance - at absolute first glance - it was apparent to me when the Chief Minister put them before my eyes, one glance was enough to know that they were not minutes. They are headed ‘Ministerial Meeting 23 January 2002’. A reading of the first paragraph would be enough for anyone I would suggest to know that they are not minutes, and I quote from that first paragraph: The opening statement, dot points:
- NTPOA is a professional organisation
We do not want special treatment just a chance to put our views forward
We expect to be treated in a manner accorded to the police/judiciary/legal professions
To be recognised as an integral part of the justice system.
Madam Speaker, anyone glancing at that would see that they are points that they wanted to make in a meeting with the minister. They are not minutes. They are not a record of proceedings of a meeting. They are simply dot points that presumably members of the Prison Officers Association wanted to raise. This is an agenda, not a copy of minutes. Anyone purporting to table a document in this Assembly ought well know the difference.
The problem the member for Goyder has is this - he has to explain to this Assembly today - is he a liar, is he an outright liar who tried to misrepresent a document in this Chamber by referring to an agenda as minutes or a record of a meeting? Or, there is another option: is he a complete and utter dill? Is he a complete and utter dill, and perhaps there is a third one, but they go together: he has been set up in this little charade by a person or persons unknown. I mean he has a choice here: yes, I’m a liar, I tried to fool you; no, I’m not a liar, I am just a dill. I submit he is one or the other.
We do know this: he is a trained lawyer with all that that training, that legal, that reading and all that that implies. Now, I wondered if he could have been so sloppy in a court of law when he was in his profession as lawyer defending clients as he apparently has been here. Is he so complacent about his duties in this Chamber that he can so flippantly refer to a given document as a set of minutes when quite clearly it is a set of agenda points for people to refer to? Is he being mischievous and manipulative, and prepared to take an outright risk by lying in the hope that he would not be caught out?
Madam Speaker, if it is the latter and he is a liar, he has been duly caught out and he fully deserves the censure of this House. He has, by his actions, also pulled in a number of members on the other side. They were all too keen to jump in and support him, but you have to ask yourself: did they have a look at this document? Because if they had had a look at the document they would have known that these were not minutes but, in fact, dot points for an agenda. Did they readily accept that what the member for Goyder had was in fact minutes, or were they caught up in it, or were they complicit in this little dupe to try and mislead the House?
The Leader of the Opposition, as we know, followed suit with a question on this issue. The member for Katherine, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, also followed suit. Those members are senior members of the opposition. Certainly, the member for Katherine has been here since 1987 - the longest serving member of this House, has been through this sort of nonsense in the past - a little too careful and experienced to get caught up with something as stupid as this, I would have thought, but apparently he did. The Leader of the Opposition has a responsibility in his capacity as the Leader of the Opposition, in the first place, not to mislead the House himself and in the second place, in his capacity as leader, not to allow members of his own side to mislead this House. Did neither of these members check the actual document that the member for Goyder was waving around?
I ask myself, do they caucus when they are preparing and putting these questions together? Do they have a look at the evidence on which they are basing their questions and allegations? Well, apparently not here. And that is an indictment of not just the member for Goyder, not just the Leader of the Opposition, but in fact an indictment of the entire lot of them because what they have done is base five questions on the lies of the member for Goyder.
So, let’s be clear also, where the opposition and the member for Goyder - the discredited member for Goyder - were headed with these baseless allegations. They were alleging that the former Minister for Correctional Services, the member for Arnhem, had instructed authorities at Correctional Services not to transfer Aboriginal prisoners to Alice Springs. That is a serious allegation, worthy of a censure, I would have thought, if it was true. We need to be clear on the point of this level of seriousness, because they were hell-bent on proving that the former minister had interfered, in an operational sense, in Correctional Services. Moreover, in a racist manner to ensure that Aboriginal prisoners would not be transferred to Alice Springs.
Mr Reed: Don’t you think that is a serious issue?
Mr STIRLING: It absolutely is a serious issue and underlines the seriousness of the lie perpetrated by the member for Goyder. Sucked you in, Mike. I would be a bit careful of saying too much here, if I was you. He got you by the short and curlies; you jumped up and asked a question.
To prosecute an allegation of that seriousness requires evidence. It requires substantial substantive evidence. What have we seen? We have seen a document headed ‘Ministerial Meeting 23 January 2002’, purported by the member for Goyder and the member for Goyder only - because I sense that the Leader of the Opposition cringed a bit when I had a look at this and said: ‘These aren’t minutes, get real!’ He ducked. He ducked. He said: ‘My God, what’s he done?’ I am sure that was the attitude. And the response of the member for Wanguri confirms that I am on the spot there. Confirms that I was on the spot, that he did, in fact, duck and think, ‘Oh, my God, I wish I’d had a look at this document before the member for Goyder was waving it around his head’.
What we have seen is the document purported, by the member for Goyder only, to be a set of minutes from a meeting between the Minister for Justice and some members of the Prison Officers Association, but what actually, of course, is a dot point agenda. Is it any wonder …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to page 328 of the House of Representatives Practice in relation to censure motions against opposition members. Page 319 makes it clear that: ‘The importance of such motions or amendments is recognised by a rule that any motion should be given against a government’. I point out to you that the opposition invited the censure of the House to be ruled out of order, and was ruled out of order on the grounds that it was frivolous. A censure motion against an opposition member is a frivolous exercise.
Madam SPEAKER: We have had precedence before when government has brought forward censure motions on the opposition and we have allowed debate by this House.
Mr STIRLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have seen a number of those; I do not think ever against myself. But is it any wonder that the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General had no apparent recollection of this? He had never seen these minutes because they simply did not exist. And he had no recollection of the events as described by the member for Goyder, the Leader of the Opposition, and followed up by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
I dare say that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be far more careful in future when approached by the member for Goyder or, in fact, any other member of the opposition, telling them that they really have something on the government, when in fact it is all a pretence, a charade, a lie. If I was them, I would want to be looking at the document well in advance of getting down here and asking a question in Question Time. It is a serious motion, a censure motion, despite what the member for Macdonnell might say, because the member for Goyder fully deserves - absolutely and fully deserves - the censure of this House because he lied. He lied outright in relation to a document in his possession, which he was hoping would help him to prosecute a malicious and repugnant allegation against the former Minister for Corrections and the Minister for Justice.
The member for Goyder is a liar, he is lazy and complacent; or he is a complete dill; and perhaps, a combination of all three. I am interested in how he came to be set up as the goose in this exercise, if that is indeed the case. Did someone thrust the document in his hand as he came down the lift or just outside the door in the lobby, and say: ‘Here is the minutes you are looking for of the meeting between the Minister for Justice and members of the Prison Officers Association’? Or did he construct himself, did he bring it upon himself to refer to this little document as, in fact, minutes?
The member for Goyder has an opportunity to respond in this debate and I, for one, am interested in what he will have to say because he will have to admit to being a liar - and not a very good one - or a dill who was duped by others - and they are possible - or lazy and complacent in the sure knowledge I think he has, that one day his turn will come to replace the Leader of the Opposition when the Leader of the Opposition decides it is time for him to move on. Now, that is possibly the most likely explanation. In any case, I hope that the member for Goyder has learnt a lesson here today. Do not come in here waving documents around your head, calling them one thing when they are very clearly not that. I suggest that is lesson number one that you should learn.
I do have, further to this fairly unsavoury little exercise earlier today, a copy of a memo from the Commission of Correctional Services, which I will table, but I will quote:
- From Commissioner to Chief Executive Officer, Department of Justice
Matters raised in the Legislative Assembly during Question Time today, 26 February 2002.
In relation to the above, I confirm that at no time during briefings I had with the then Minister for
Correctional Services, Mr John Ah Kit, nor his ministerial staff, was I directed to change any
arrangements I had made regarding prisoner transfers from Darwin Correctional Centre to
Alice Springs Correctional Centre.
I have reviewed the file in respect to this matter and no correspondence or comment appears to have
been made in regard to matters raised.
The transfer of prisoners took place on 9 November 2001, as I had previously advised.
Signed R D Moore, Commissioner.
I will table that memo for the benefit of members opposite.
Importantly, there is no substance in the matters raised today by members opposite - seemingly sordid allegations of racist behaviour by the former Minister for Correctional Services. But there is plenty of substance in this censure motion that I have raised in this Assembly.
The member for Goyder sought very clearly to mislead this Assembly by claiming to have a copy of minutes when he had no such thing. All members should support this motion, but before they do, I am very keen to learn from the member for Goyder just how this occurred.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I make a couple of points. I am pleased to hear that the Deputy Chief Minister has placed on the record that he has accepted the existence of this document and has given it some credibility as a factual document. It is disappointing to note some of the comments he made. I just put this on the record - I am informed by an employee of Correctional Services that the document headed ‘Ministerial Meeting 23 January 2002’, the document which I quite openly tendered and placed on the Table - the document was prepared by Corrections officers. It was placed on a noticeboard, certain agenda items were added. It was then taken to a meeting, I am informed, which occurred on 23 January 2002, and the matters in that particular document were properly raised, and present an accurate reflection of what occurred.
They were given to me as it was termed, ‘These are the minutes of meeting’. Now, prison officers want you to loosely refer to this as minutes of meeting, I am happy to accept that. I certainly did not mean for the government to take so much offence. On the logical rationale which the Deputy Chief Minister has adopted, he has talked about the term ‘agenda’. Well, the term ‘agenda’ does not appear at the top of this document. It says ‘ministerial meeting’. So he is, it seems on his rationale, as guilty as me as describing an agenda when it clearly says ministerial meeting. There was no attempt to hide this document. I stood up and during the course of the question, always intended, and indeed, did tender that document.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MALEY: It seems the government is still thinking like an opposition, and if this is their best defence to the very serious allegation, then you must feel like the ground has opened up and you are going to fall into a massive crack and it is going to close up. Because you cannot avoid this serious allegation which has been made. The defence that you have and the way that you have sought to deal with the matter does you no credit.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, you have had your say.
Mr MALEY: It is proof that you are sensitive to this issue. We want to get to the bottom of it. We want the proof. I look forward to hearing the member for Arnhem’s contribution to this censure motion, so we can record on Hansard his responses.
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: The Labor government is doomed. This is the type of theatrics - and this is all that they can rely upon …
Mr DUNHAM: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The interjections during this are not only tiresome, they are intended to put the speaker off providing the information that has been sought by those on the opposite side, and I would ask if you would afford him some protection.
Ms Martin: So is he supporting your leadership?
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, order. There is a point of order raised, and I think it is probably fair to say that we did listen to the Leader of Government Business in fair silence. So let’s give the member for Goyder his say. Can I just say though, when you make provocative comments, do not be surprised if you get a provocative response.
Mr MALEY: Madam Speaker, you can be sure that I am not going to lower myself to the standard which the media and the Northern Territory public are becoming used to through the member for Fannie Bay and the Deputy Chief Minister.
I have succinctly put the true and correct version of how this document came to be tendered. There is absolutely no substance to this motion. It is ill-conceived, doomed, poorly planned, poorly executed, and really it is a disgrace. It goes some way in demonstrating how much trouble the Territory really is in. This is what you have done and you should be very proud of yourself.
Ms Martin: You spent question time asking so many questions on this fraudulent matter.
Mr MALEY: Perhaps you should have a close look at yourself and the way that you conduct yourself, and I hope the media are here to hear this quite rude interjection. All we have asked is, what are you doing? What are you going to do? We have an obligation as an opposition to dutifully take issues to you, to make sure that you are an honest government, and there is no way that you can in any way suggest that you have been duped. I have given you the document. The heading is there. You called it an agenda; the people who gave me this refer to it loosely as minutes. It is …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Chief Minister, come to order.
Mr MALEY: If I could just be heard. There is no need to become hysterical. I can say there is no substance to this motion; it is a waste of time. The facts speak for themselves. I appreciate the fact that the Deputy Chief Minister has accepted this as a factual document. He describes it, albeit, as an agenda, and I am interested to see what independent investigations are undertaken by the government to satisfy this House.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr MALEY: You listen closely. I will be interested to see what further investigation the government undertakes to satisfy this House and also support the answers which the member for Arnhem and the member for Stuart so passionately gave.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, when someone comes into the House and uses a bald faced lie to misrepresent not only the supposed actions of the previous Minister for Correctional Services, my colleague the member for Arnhem, but also what I was purported to have said or not said at a legitimate meeting with the Prison Officers Association, I start to get pretty hostile. The very least that members of this House owe each other is to use only factual material if you are going to impute the reputation of other members.
As Minister for Correctional Services, I have a very important responsibility not only to deal with the Prison Officers Association in whatever terms they want to bring to me, but also to make sure that their reputation is defended. By dragging this document through the public arena and calling it minutes, calling it what it was not, you have not only insulted me and my colleague, but you have also insulted the officers who make up this association and the profession that they follow. Correctional Services has enough on its plate with the very complex issues they deal with without having their internal negotiations with the minister dragged through this House, based on lies, as to what the document is that has been presented here.
I can once again confirm that not only is this not an official or agreed-to minutes of our negotiations, but, in fact, the item that you chose to pick out of the document actually was not discussed. We take our own transcripts of our meetings and I can certainly confirm that that item was simply not discussed, and that was my memory of it when I was questioned earlier today.
If you want to go around and say that every document that is brought in front of the government is the government’s view and that we were party to the assertions made on this document or any other document, you are going to be in trouble. You get your facts straight. It may have occurred to you to go around and check a few things out. If you are asserting that the Minister for Correctional Services, at the time the member for Arnhem was in that position, had influenced the process, where is the evidence of it? Did you look at the prison transfers? It is very clear, according to the figures here - and I gave them earlier today - that of 78 prisoner transfers, 47 were Indonesian. The Correctional Services CEO, Dave Moore, has given very clear reasons why a substantial number of the Indonesian people smugglers were taken to Alice Springs. They are a more stable group and they can actually sustain themselves in an effective way if there are sufficient numbers of them down there. That is a policy decision that has been made by the department and is for prisoner management and it is for the appropriateness of the two prisons to the particular prisoners that they are looking at. Nine were Caucasian. Are we saying that that’s racist? Twenty-two were Aboriginal. Well, if the minister said: ‘No more prisoner transfers who are Aboriginal’, then it certainly did not get through to the troops because the Aboriginal prisoners were transferred in exactly the proportion of Aboriginal prisoners within our prisons. One-third are Aboriginal; one-third were transferred out of the 78. Eight were volunteers; they chose to go to be closer to families, or to take up prison programs that they had an interest in.
There is no evidence wherever you look for this ridiculous allegation that has been brought forward based on a document presented as a lie. This is the worst possible action by a member of parliament. To deceive this place deliberately as to the document that has been quoted from is the worst possible behaviour. We have a Privileges Committee. I think the member for Goyder will be very relieved if he finds he is not being dragged up to the Privileges Committee to answer to his actions today. It has brought shame on the entire opposition that they have indulged in this absolutely seamy incident today. You have standards that you have to show to the Northern Territory people that you can live to if you want to aspire to get back into government in some 20 years from now, maybe, the way you are going. But you come in here - do what we do: get your facts straight, don’t tell lies and check what is really going on before you get in here and make a fool of yourselves.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, these things are, for an Independent, very difficult at times because you are asked on the spot to make a decision. It would probably be more comfortable for me to just sit down and listen to the debate. I am not here to gain favour from one side or the other, but it just so happens that I had a meeting with George Johnson, I think he is the President of the Prison Officers Association, who actually handed me a copy of the minutes of the recent meeting. I cannot give you the date or the facts because I am afraid my office is closed at the moment, so I can’t get the facts as I would like to. But I have read those minutes and this document here is very similar to those minutes. In fact, the reason that I noticed them is because I was concerned about the section on petrol sniffers and terminally-ill prisoners. They were among the issues I was hoping to raise in parliament.
I am not here to support the allegations that there has been racial interference in prisoners movements in the Northern Territory. That is another issue. I am here is to try to find out the truth and perhaps whether someone has stood up here in parliament believing that what they gave parliament were the minutes. Having seen the document that I have back at my office, these certainly look very similar to what I have as minutes. They may not be exactly the same - and I don’t remember the title ‘ministerial meeting’ - but the subjects that they cover, many of them - and I can’t say all of them - but many of them are exactly what is in the minutes.
I am not here to defend the member for Goyder. We all have to stand up on our own feet here and take what comes. But looking at the motion which is basically saying that this was an agenda, I could not say they were an agenda, either, because an agenda, as we all know, would have something like apologies, minutes from the last meeting, it would have a series of dot points. It might have correspondence. But it would have a format which you would normally regard as an agenda for a meeting. This does not read like an agenda. This reads like a statement that has been made. An agenda will basically say, ‘this is what we are going to discuss’. I can’t see how, say, dot point - I will just take one out – ‘We expect to be treated in a manner according to the police/judiciary/legal professions’. It does not sound like a dot point from an agenda.
I do think that the member for Goyder perhaps should have checked his facts on where it came from and where it was used. When we quote from a particular document, we all have to be very careful that we know exactly where it has come from. But on the other hand to say that it is an agenda, I think, is also perhaps suggesting something that it is not.
Madam Speaker, I do not support the motion basically because I believe I have documents at home that do agree that this is, or has some reference to, minutes of a meeting. But, on the other hand, and I state it categorically, we should be very careful of accusing people of making racial decisions about the movement of prisoners unless they have genuine proof. And the only proof - if this is the document that is being used, it seems to be on page 2 - I presume this is the section being referred to:
Ministerial interference in an operational matter (Alice Springs escort) and the fact
this interference was based on racial grounds.
Now, unless someone has a lot more evidence to prove that is the point, then I would not support that. But as this stands, against the motion, I would not support this.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say with regards this censure motion is that, as the member for Macdonnell said, it is really a desperate government that indulges itself in a censure motion against an opposition. The House of Representatives records of these things point clearly to the fact that these are generally considered to be frivolous motions. I can assure the government that there is enough experience within the ranks of the opposition to deal seriously with an issue such as this, to do some research before allegations of such a serious nature are raised in this House.
I do agree that these are very serious allegations that go to the heart of what sort of political direction has occurred through the minister’s office, either by the minister himself personally or by one of his staff, to officers of Corrections. I suggest that if the government felt that it could deal with these serious allegations as quickly as they feel they can deal with them today, I imagine that our current Governor-General would feel quite heartened if he could deal with the allegations that he faces. Allegations are raised and if there is something untoward, evidence will come out. I can tell you that it is unfortunate, to my mind, that one individual has been named in this Chamber today by virtue of this censure motion, because that directly affects that individual. But, believe me, that is not the only individual involved in these sorts of allegations that have been made.
The issue is simply this: it seems to me that, from the questions and the answers that we received today, and the letter that has now been produced from Mr Moore, the Commissioner for Correctional Services, that there are serious answers that we require to be answered, and answered fully.
The facts are that, whether you call it an agenda, a dot point plan, minutes of a meeting, or whatever, there is no question in a number of people’s minds, in Corrections, that something untoward happened in the transfer of prisoners from Darwin to Alice Springs, in that directions were given that certain prisoners were not to go on a particular aircraft. Those concerns were so serious that, we understand, representations were made to a number of ministers. I understand also, that, in due course, assurances were given that this incident would not happen again. I also point to this: the Commissioner for Correctional Services said this in his letter:
- … I confirm that at no time during briefings I had with the then Minister for Correctional Services … nor
his ministerial staff, was I directed to change any arrangements I had made regarding prisoner transfers …
The question to the minister was not that the commissioner himself had been directed, the question to the minister was whether the Corrections officers who were involved in that transfer were directed by either himself or members of his staff. So that paragraph does not answer the allegations that have been made.
Secondly, I would say to you this, the last paragraph raises more questions. If no incident occurred; if there has never been anything untoward with regard to the transfer of prisoners from Darwin to Alice Springs; if, as you say, the current minister for Justice, that from October to November, 78 prisoners were transferred, including Aboriginals, why does the Commissioner for Corrections point to one individual plane on one individual day? He says in his last paragraph:
- The transfer of prisoners took place on 9 November 2001, as I have previously advised.
The transfer of prisoners occurs regularly from October to November. What happened on that day? Was that the day when the directions were given, was that the day the commissioner is referring to, was that the day when Corrections officers were very concerned at what happened? We want to know what happened. We want to know what happened, and we will probe this issue until we do find out what happened. It is no good coming into this House and saying, through some frivolous censure motion, that the member for Goyder got the words ‘minutes’ wrong and it should be agenda. That is not the issue. The issue here is that someone is lying. And it is not from this side of the House.
The opposition can make allegations because of the seriousness of those allegations and we expect the answers in this House. At this stage, including your censure motion, all you have done is raise more questions. All you have done is shown that there was one incident that the commissioner is now trying to say, nothing untoward occurred. Why would he point to one incident? Why would he point to one day and one plane? Why would he say, in all the time from October to November, there has never been a problem, no one has ever given directions? Prisoners have been transferred and nothing has ever happened untoward. Do you know why? Because there are a bunch of people out there who believe that from this minister’s office a direction was given, specifically, as the plane was on the tarmac, as prisoners were being prepared and processed for transfer, the direction came through that certain Aboriginal prisoners were not to be moved, certain Aboriginal prisoners were to be taken from the manifest. We understand that representations were then made regarding that direction. We understand also that, further to that, representations were made to the current Justice Minister who, we understand, was aghast, apologetic and said this would not happen again.
Now, when you say, the current Minister for Justice: ‘I can’t recollect, I can’t recollect this’. When you say, current minister for Aboriginal Development, ‘I can’t recollect this’, remember this: people come to your staff, and they say: ‘I expected to see the minister’. You know what they are told? ‘You got me, it is the same thing’. I have had people come to me who have said they have been up to see a minister, they have ended up seeing a minder, and they have been told, ‘You’re seeing me, it’s the same thing’. So the issue is this.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is no relevance to what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BURKE: The issue is clearly this. What happened? What happened in terms of the transfer of prisoners between October and November. Was it on a particular day? Was it on a number of days that reached the point where the Prison Officers Association raised concerns amongst their own members, put it on their own agenda, whether it be minutes or whatever you want to call it, sought representations from the minister, two ministers, and sought satisfaction and got none. That is the allegation, and at this stage we have not received any answer, except the only thing that has come out, is that the member for Nelson has now confirmed that a senior member of the Prison Officers Association raised those concerns.
That is what you have achieved today. The second thing that you have achieved today, our bright, erudite, Deputy Chief Minister, is to produce a letter that seems to me to point to the fact that on 9 November 2001, notwithstanding that the prisoners went, something untoward occurred. That was pointed out to me, so over to you, ducky. Keep going with your censure motions, but out there, amongst the general public, amongst those who are interested, amongst the members of the opposition, you have a lot of answers to give.
Mr AH KIT (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, what a performance. We have a classic example of the member for Goyder misleading the House. He trotted out the agenda, he made us believe and in fact went on Hansard, it was witnessed by all members present, that it was the minutes. We have a situation where my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, explained the system, and what disappoints me in this witch hunt, is that the previous Chief Minister has no idea that there is a process in place, that was put in place by the previous minister for Corrections, and it operated with the same CEO, who said there would be 48 hours notice given for any prison transfers either way, from Alice Springs to Darwin, or Darwin to Alice Springs. This minister passed on to me that it happens when there is an overcrowding situation.
In fact, when this was happening, I spoke to the Chief Executive Officer, the commissioner, when I was visiting my electorate in Ngukurr. He then spoke to officers of my department, there was no, as he says here, in black and white, he is the CEO, his appointment took place when you were in government. Are you saying now, in this House, that he is a liar, and that you are prepared to take up this prison officers’ so-called minutes and, 4 pm today, I will table this, this was on Drive Time, on the news, 26 February 2002. And I quote:
- The Territory opposition has called for the sacking of a senior government minister claiming he
ordered prison officers not to send Aboriginal inmates to the Alice Springs jail.
I will be coming back to the evidence shortly.
- The CLP claims John Ah Kit ordered the transfer only of Caucasian and Asian prisoners. Outside the
House, the shadow Attorney-General, Peter Maley, said he statement from a Territory prison officer
which substantiated the claim. He says the Chief Minister has no option but to sack Mr Ah Kit.
Peter Maley voice-over. This is what Mr Maley said:
- He has interfered in the transfer of prisoners on racial grounds. He has directed, inappropriately,
Correctional officers that only Asians and whites can be transferred to Alice Springs and Aboriginals
will remain in Darwin. That’s unacceptable.
I have denied the allegations.
What really disturbs me is the racial allegations that is attached to it, as an Aboriginal minister. We just heard from the conference on the weekend that they want to recruit more Aboriginal people to their party. Well, this is a nice way of going about it - having a shot at the minister who is an Aboriginal person and chucking racial slurs at him, accusing him of something that they can not corroborate evidence about. In the legal training for the member for Goyder, one would like to think that he understood quite clearly ‘innocent until proven guilty’. What I ask him to do, along with the Leader of the Opposition, is to present the evidence. Trot out the evidence, for goodness’ sake. That’s what we are talking about when we talk about facts. Because at no time was there any instruction given by me or, as far as I am aware, my officers, to hold up this plane. In fact, Commissioner Moore says it happened, and it happened on that date that he had advice it would happen.
Leader of the Opposition, I am not sure whether there were any transfers in October/November other than that one, and there well may not have been. But he does not know that; I do not know that.
Mr Burke: Well, why don’t you know?
Mr AH KIT: I will find out. I cannot recollect any, but you were saying, and you are assuming, that there were three or four of these types of transfers.
What I have done, is I have bounced back and put out a press release which I can table for the members opposite, and it is titled ‘Maley caught misleading parliament’. I table that because, if this is the game the shadow Attorney-General wishes to play, and he wishes also to tie in racial allegations to that, then I am concerned for members on that side of the House and their recruitment campaign. Their president spoke last weekend about recruiting Aboriginal people to the party. This will do nothing when trying to recruit Aboriginal people to their party when they have politicians such as you people trying to take a cheap shot - no evidence, and you are grasping at straws. You really should learn to become a very good opposition. You should learn to produce the facts and evidence because if you haven’t, this parliament has a lot of business to do in terms of its agenda, and it is very important to Territorians that we should not be wasting our time on witch hunts such as this.
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, this is fairly unedifying, I would have thought, for the opposition. They have slipped, within a day, back into the racist, divisive politics of the past, something that we on this side of the House will work very, very hard to make sure that they are not allowed to run. They cannot get away with running this sort of agenda again. They lost an election barely six months ago. They have just come from a central council. God knows where that is taking them. It certainly has not given them any light on the hill, in any sense that Chifley may have used.
I will go very briefly to the defence put by the member for Goyder because, basically, he had nothing to say except, ‘I’m a dill’. They loosely refer to them as minutes: ‘I called them minutes. I’m sorry if I’ve misled the House, but I called them minutes. They were loosely referred to as minutes by the guys who gave them to me’. Not very smart. Not very smart for a man, we assume, with legal training, who has something of a trained mind in these matters. Unfortunately, he has left it behind upon his entry to politics. More damaging than that - than the fact that he has just prosecuted himself as a dill, and we’ll leave it there – I am not convinced that there is not more malicious lying beneath that. But if he is happy to portray himself as a dill, we will leave it. I am happy for him to have that title ever after.
More damaging than that though, is this attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to further confuse this matter of whether they are minutes and whether they should be referred to as minutes, or whether they are, in fact, reminder points for members of the Prison Officers Association going into this meeting of the issues that they wanted to raise.
Mr Burke: What’s the difference? What about an agenda, that’s what you …
Mr STIRLING: Well, there is an awful big difference. There is an awfully big difference between a document purporting to minutes - minutes of a meeting which, in all honesty, would have been circulated to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. He or his staff who were present at the meeting would have been asked to have a look at the minutes: ‘Do you concur that these are a true and accurate record of what transpired on the particular day that the meeting took place?’ Nothing, nothing came by way of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. And this turkey up here walks in - and let me go back to this document. Let me go back to this document. It says - I’ll pick one: ‘We have only had industrial actions over safety/security matters and these actions have always had the full support of the Labour [sic] Party (note only very limited action taken to date)’. Is this the form of a minute? I ask myself, is this the form? Did this discussion actually take place? Is this in the form of minutes? It is not! It is not. It is a prompt for the members of the Prison Officers Association to have in their back pocket. When they go into the meeting they can raise these points with the minister.
It is no wonder the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General had no recollection of this, because the particular point that they refer to: ‘Ministerial interference in an operational matter (Alice Springs escort) …’, and the fact this interference was based on racial grounds, was never raised. It was simply never raised. Now, I am more prepared to take the word of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice than this turkey over here who has proven himself to be either incompetent or a liar or a dill or both, or all three.
I am confident he prosecuted himself, but I want to go one step further. Not only did the Leader of the Opposition seek to confuse the difference between reminder points for an agenda in the form of dot points and a series of minutes, which actually record what took place at a meeting - and if you do not know the difference between that you had better go back to your office and sort this out at your next caucus meeting because, by God, there is a huge difference in the two.
But the other point is this, and the most damaging thing to come out of this little exercise this afternoon, is the Leader of the Opposition standing in here and casting aspersions against a senior public servant - someone who I have worked with quite closely as shadow minister for correctional services for many years, Mr Dave Moore, a man who I have the utmost respect for and absolute trust in his integrity. This goose of a Leader of the Opposition not only stands and defends a liar - a liar in his own backbench - but he has the temerity, in this House, to go and accuse a senior public servant of lying. And for that alone, he stands condemned and I am sorry the motion did not go so far as to pick him up in it as well. But certainly, the member for Goyder stands condemned.
Madam Speaker, I ask the motion be put, and all members should vote for it.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I understand that, as the member was speaking closing debate, there is no need for a motion to be put, because they’re not …
Madam SPEAKER: Well, he moved it, so we are putting the motion. You are probably procedurally right, but the motion was put and then we will move to the agreement of the motion. I don’t think he realised what he did.
The question is that the motion be put.
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
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Vision for a Stronger Territory
Vision for a Stronger Territory
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today I report to this parliament and to the people of the Territory on the government’s plans for the coming year to achieve our vision of a stronger Territory with better opportunities for all citizens.
Our overall aim is to build a united Territory, moving forward on social and economic improvements in partnership with all our communities. We want this government to be characterised by openness and accountability and we have already brought in a raft of legislation to achieve those aims. We want the Territory to be a place in which our young people will want to stay, attracting talented people from around the nation and the world, and we have made a start in this area. We want better health and community services for all Territorians, particularly indigenous communities whose health problems are so severe, and we have new plans to achieve this.
We who live here know that the Territory is an exciting and progressive place with people from diverse backgrounds and cultures sharing one of the world’s most beautiful environments. We are now starting to get the message across to others that it is an exciting place for investors on the verge of substantial development as we bring the vast resources of the Timor Sea onshore and rapidly improve our transport infrastructure. The Territory has always seen its future in the marketplaces of Asia and with the improved economic growth of neighbours to our north, our outlook is very positive. Respected economic forecasters, Access Economics and BIS Schrapnel, expect vigorous growth across Territory business and industry in the next five to 15 years. This means more jobs for Territorians and it means that we can confidently plan for a better future.
While brighter prospects beckon, we must take stock of the challenges and opportunities of our present position. My government took office last August with a fully costed plan for reform only to find that a projected $12m deficit was more than ten times that big; a scandalous indictment of our predecessor’s financial management. We have had to modify our plans for the short term in order to get our budget in order. And we are grateful for the support of Territorians as we go through some temporary adjustments on the way to a balanced budget. But not for a minute have we abandoned our broad aims to bring all Territorians a decent standard of living: better health, better education, better job opportunities. We will deliver on our commitments to Territorians.
No one should be in any doubt that we are aware that there is a big gap between our vision of what the Territory could be and the reality for a great many of our citizens, particularly those in indigenous communities. But rather than seeing indigenous people as being the problem, we have inclusive policies of equity and opportunity for all who live here. The Territory has a proud tradition of electing Aboriginal members of parliament and the fact that we now have four indigenous members of parliament is a great source of pride. This is what we mean by a government working in partnership with people. We want long term, effective solutions that come from the people themselves. That is why as good economic managers we have continued to ensure good growth in our health and education budgets along with special programs for indigenous development. This government stands for sound budget management but that is not an end in itself. We are driven by a commitment to make a difference to the lives of Territorians who feel that they have been left behind by Australia’s economic progress. We believe that the whole community is served by raising standards for everyone. No one wants to live in a community characterised by a great divide between the haves and the have nots. That is not the Territory spirit and it is not the Australian way.
We are determined to build a safer Territory, to tackle crime with vigour but we also need to look at its causes. It is in the interests of all Territorians that we do that through strong crime prevention measures and by trying to raise living standards and increasing opportunities for all, particularly for our young people. As in so many other areas of government, this is best done through a whole-of-government approach. Getting all the relevant agencies together to focus on an issue not only cuts waste and duplication, it delivers more effective strategies and solutions. Our aim is to get together the best minds across a broad range of portfolios. This coordinated approach, which is important across all our work, means that we are making progress on many issues even while we have had to tighten our belts. We are working smarter. That is what whole-of-government is about.
With the huge changes in technology of recent times we can help overcome our problems of geography and bring our far flung communities closer together using better communications and the active pursuit of new knowledge. Let’s look for example at the Desert Knowledge Precinct in Alice Springs, and I will be saying more about that later, and new industries like aquaculture in which Territorians are using the latest technology in expanding, for instance, on traditional techniques of barramundi farming. These projects show how we can use our peoples’ skills and our unique location for sophisticated projects of international interest.
On the first day of parliament for 2002, I want to map out the government’s major plans for this, our first full year of government. I want to group our initiatives under two main headings – our economic development agenda and our social agenda. I want to stress again that we believe that these are of equal importance and, in some cases, cannot be easily separated.
Turning first to economic development. I believe this relies on a sound, cooperative partnership between government, private sector, unions, indigenous Territorians and broader community groups. One of our first acts on taking government was to set up the Office of Territory Development in my portfolio to consolidate industry and investment development and kick start major projects. In the long term this will mean more and better jobs for the Territory.
This government has been working hard behind the scenes to bring Timor Sea gas to shore in Darwin and we are confident that we will see firm decisions within the next few months. Our vision is for Darwin to become the fourth gas hub for Australia after the North West Shelf, Bass Strait and Moomba; to provide cheap energy, gas manufacturing, mineral processing and a link to the national grid. Once there is a commitment on the gas, I am confident that Darwin will once again become a focus for major investors. We will not be sitting still on this. We are actively talking to business and industry both here and overseas to encourage their interest and investment dollars.
My government is well advanced in its plans for the development of Glyde Point and Middle Arm industrial estates to accommodate future energy projects, and we are all proceeding full steam ahead on land acquisition and negotiations including environmental processes for the implementation of gas and associated industries as soon as it comes to shore.
We are also well advanced with our proposal to make the Territory the gateway to Asia with the new Alice to Darwin railway creating a central trade corridor. We will reinvigorate the Northern Territory-South Australia working group through the new Labor government in South Australia, and we will give it a much clearer focus under our Office for Territory Development. Some of the joint plans for the future include making Darwin a possible centre for timber processing, identifying products like chilled fish that could be exported via the railway, and further opportunities in mining and resource development. Tourism agencies in both the Territory and South Australia will work together in identifying new tourism opportunities that can flow from the operation of the railway, and there are some very exciting ventures to be discussed in this traditional Territory industry.
I spoke earlier about our opportunities as part of the knowledge economy, one of the fastest growing areas for business and education both in Australia and other developed countries. Our best example at the moment is the Desert Knowledge project which has as its vision a thriving desert knowledge economy in Central Australia. A very significant part of the project will be the Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre which is in advanced stages of planning for submission to the Commonwealth in May this year. The CRC will encourage partnerships at a national and international level between business, industries, universities, CSIRO and other private and public sector agencies building on activities that occur in arid Australia. As recently announced, former Rio Tinto executive Paul Wand will be the chair of the CRC. Paul was formerly Vice-President of Indigenous Affairs for Rio Tinto.
This project aims to be nothing less than a world centre of excellence in remote and arid zone knowledge with research into desert technology, infrastructure, horticulture, historical heritage, Aboriginal art and culture, alternative energies and water research. Scientific researchers are trying to make desert zones, which cover a large proportion of the globe, more productive with better use of water, discovery of better plant types and the use of recycling and waste disposal techniques. There is great potential here to develop new technologies to market to the world, and it is pleasing to see the opportunities opening up for Aboriginal people to become involved.
Tropical knowledge is another area I have put on the agenda for the Office of Territory Development to pursue. There is growing international demand for knowledge on tropical living, medicine, sustainable development and tourism. We plan to build on existing research in this area at the Northern Territory University and there are exciting prospects ahead, particularly when you consider that 40% of the world lives in the tropical zone.
Here in Darwin the government has plans for development of the wharf precinct, and those plans are currently open for public comment. Discussions have been held with major companies and financial groups on the shape of this redevelopment, and management options are now being considered at departmental level.
Meanwhile, we have announced a review of our Planning Act and by the end of the year, public consultation will have occurred and legislative changes brought into this House. Legislation will also be before the House early next year covering builders’ licensing, builders’ registration and home indemnity insurance; a discussion paper will be circulated mid-year for extensive public comment. I should also mention that the Darwin Harbour Plan of Management will be out for public comment before mid-year.
Negotiations with the federal government have been stepped up over the future of Lee Point, and we are now awaiting an answer from them. We are increasingly confident of an outcome soon, and this will see the development of hundreds of residential blocks in an area close to town and close to existing services. Our predecessors talked about this; we will do it.
Turning to communications, we are extending telecommunications infrastructure and services into remote communities which gives us an opportunity to lead social and economic development. Government is supporting the Outback Digital Network, an indigenous owned and managed company, to obtain funds from the Commonwealth’s Networking The Nation program and National Communications Fund to extend digital networks in a number of remote communities. We have begun a process of tendering for provision of government office space to encourage development with developers operating on a level playing field for the first time. This received a great deal of public support when I announced it last November and it is about time we got away from the ad hoc and opaque process of our predecessors. An evaluation panel and independent probity auditor are now assessing expressions of interest and we hope to make decisions on successful tenderers by the end of the month.
My colleague, the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development, has a large number of priorities for the coming year, chief among them matching the capabilities of Territory business for the emerging opportunity in services and supply for the mining, oil, gas and defence industries. The challenge is to maximise the employment and training opportunities as early as possible. There is a great deal of work going on implementing the recommendations of last year’s Economic Development Summit and the regular business round tables.
Other key initiatives in this area are:
- encouraging innovative Territory-based businesses to maximise opportunities in emerging
technologies in the mining, health and education sectors;
building a sustainable fishing strategy for the Territory in both commercial and recreational fields;
continuing to grow export markets for primary industries, particularly in the live cattle trade, and
recent discussions with Indonesian businesses encouraged confidence that we can substantially
increase these exports; and
maximising tourism opportunities arising out of the Year of the Outback and indigenous tourism,
and working to further increase airline access into the Territory.
Other issues to be tackled over the coming months include work health reform, workers’ compensation matters and emerging issues to do with the collapse of the insurance giant, HIH. In the area of public works, there is a very large amount of activity occurring, and I would just briefly like to mention the following outstanding works. The most important is, of course, ongoing work on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. Across the Territory, more than $325m in contracts have been awarded to Territory businesses to date. Of this about …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Finished?
Madam SPEAKER: Continue, Chief Minister. Ignore the remarks.
Ms MARTIN: Of these contracts awarded on the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, about $175m in business has been won by Darwin companies alone. Presently, about 112 Darwin people are employed directly by companies involved in the railway while many more are employed by subcontractors in a variety of roles and this will only increase as the Dry gets closer.
Other works in progress include:
- the $11.3m development of the Alice Springs Convention Centre which should be completed
by the end of March;
the $30.7m Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment which is four months ahead of schedule and
should be completed by April;
the $87m East Arm Port development. The contract, which was awarded to Henry Walker Eltin
for the container terminal and railway embankment, is progressing; dredging to form the base for
the rail bund is continuing and rock armour is currently being transported to the site and stockpiled;
the $37.7m Royal Darwin Hospital redevelopment is progressing well and is expected to be completed
by October this year. To date, of the approximate $30.2m of contracts approved, 97% have gone to
Territory firms;
the $1m Tanami Road upgrade. The current condition of the road is poor. Grading commenced on
7 January at Tilmouth Well and will continue through to the West Australian border; and
the $6m construction of the high level Hugh River Bridge and approaches. Works include construction
of a 250 m long bridge and 2.5 km of approaches. A contract has been awarded and the construction is
expected.
Before I turn to social policy, I should just mention that we are hard at work on a wide range of Treasury projects including close monitoring of the 2001-02 budget and forward estimates projections, consistent with our deficit reduction strategy and also in preparation for the next budget. I note we were recognised today - and I feel with a great deal of pride - by Moody’s, who have confirmed our rating of AA2 and said that much of this is predicated on the fact that there is a sound fiscal strategy now in place under this new government.
Mr Reed: Had the same last year, the very same last year, Clara.
Ms MARTIN: We are also working hard on the introduction from 2002-03 - I pick up the point from the former Treasurer - advisor, I should say, because he really was not much of a Treasurer - that we exposed the deceit that you had in the budget, and we have put proper budget practices back in place …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Chief Minister cannot use the word ‘deceit’ in relation to the former honourable Treasurer. Whilst she did do it in the censure motion, it has not been demonstrated.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister should withdraw those remarks.
Ms MARTIN: I withdraw the word ‘deceit’ if you don’t like the word deceit, and I use fraudulent. Easy.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is dissenting from your ruling by picking a simile.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, you can’t change the words. Just withdraw.
Ms MARTIN: Withdraw. Okay, the budget was untrue; the one that was brought down by the previous Treasurer was untrue. The figures were not right.
Madam SPEAKER: I suggest that you just continue to …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, just to pick up the point of order, I have to find words to describe what happened in the 2001-02 budget brought down by the former Treasurer. The figures were not true and if the sensitive little possums on that side of the House don’t like it, well, it is a fact, and it is time that they came to terms with it.
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker, even the words, ‘sensitive little possums’, I believe are out of order. If we are going to use animal names, I could think of a few for the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: I think we are getting frivolous. I just want to say to the Chief Minister, and other members who are making ministerial statements, stick to the script. Please continue your statement.
Ms MARTIN: I really should not insult possums by calling you possums should I; I quite like them.
We are also working quite hard on the introduction from 2002-03 of an accrual output financial framework which will revolutionise the way we in government account for our spending …
Mr Reed: Another CLP initiative.
Ms MARTIN: … making it much more accurate and transparent. And you hadn’t made those final decisions.
We are participating in the national Treasury working group on the development of public/private partnerships. Treasury, the Department of Chief Minister and the Office of Territory Development are developing arrangements suitable for Territory requirements.
Let me now turn to the important work going on under the broad heading, Social Policy. And in the important area of Indigenous Policy, I want to mention that we are close to the establishment of a policy unit in the Department of Chief Minister to provide whole-of-government policy advice. This should result in a more strategic approach to indigenous issues, and it complements the Aboriginal Essential Services and Indigenous Regional Framework Agreements Initiatives being undertaken by my colleague, the Minister for Community Development and the Minister assisting me in Indigenous Affairs.
The main priorities in indigenous affairs are as follows:
- Aboriginal economic development including jobs and training;
the introduction of a broad model for regional partnerships for the delivery of services;
resolution of outstanding land issues; and
improving social outcomes in the areas of health, justice and education.
In the important area of education, one of our top priorities will be to implement the recommendations of the report by Bob Collins on Indigenous Education, the Learning Lessons report. The time for discussion, the time for prevarication which we saw from the previous government is over, the time for action has begun. In partnership with indigenous people, we will work towards increasing school attendance, and improving the quality of education and training that indigenous children receive, particularly in remote communities. In these sittings, my colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Employment, Education and Training, will be delivering a major ministerial statement on what we have done and the next steps we are taking.
The Northern Territory University is a precious resource and central to the future of this Territory. We want it to reach its potential for excellence. That is why we will be working with the federal government in every way we can over the coming months to ensure the NTU plays its role in our big and ambitious plans for the Territory and its development.
A major election commitment was the injection of 100 new teachers into our schools. This year will see the first instalment of these new teachers. They will be assigned to the areas of most need, and will come as a welcome initiative, not only to the students and parents but to the whole community.
The Territory has never had a jobs plan. There has never been a properly thought out strategy to make the links between training and the jobs of tomorrow. That is why this government is developing our first ever employment strategy.
Turning to health and community services - and I don’t want to pre-empt the minister’s statement on these important matters later today - but I know that the minister will be particularly talking about improved services in Territory hospitals, with a major focus on Alice Springs hospital. She will also talk about the establishment of multi-purpose services at Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek - both services long overdue. She will be discussing the extension of after hours GP services to relieve pressure on Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals, and improvement to the management of Aboriginal health by rolling out five zones in Central Australia. There will be measures to address problems in the nursing workforce, improved services for adolescents and people with disabilities, and their carers.
In the justice area, yesterday my colleague, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, and I launched Crime Prevention NT, a new crime prevention strategy with new regional councils, a new coordinating office based in the Department of Justice and an extra $150 000 for community grants. Overall, Crime Prevention NT will be allocated $6.7m over four years and this is $2.5m above what had been set aside previously for this important work.
Drug law reform is among our most important policies, and we are implementing our three point plan. We will bring legislation forward in the May sittings that will crack down on drug manufacturers, dealers and traffickers where they are vulnerable. The legislation will give police targeted powers to attack drug trafficking and dealing and to crack down on drug houses. It will allow us to recover the profits from drug manufacturers and dealers by strengthening ‘proceeds of crime’ legislation. This work will complement that being done by the Illicit Drug Task Force established by the Minister for Health and Community Services and by the Parliamentary Committee on Substance Abuse chaired by the member for Arafura.
I am committed to do more to enhance the status of women in the Territory, and I will be announcing some key measures to recognise the contribution of women, both past and current, in the very near future. I should also mention the coordinated and whole-of-government approach to the issue of domestic and family violence that is now taking place, with further initiatives to be presented in the coming months in the areas covered by our Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy.
We will also be doing more to better coordinate policies affecting young people in the Territory, and also our senior Territorians. And not forgetting our strong commitment to the Arts and Sport and Recreation, both so important in contributing to the Territory lifestyle that we all value so much - specifically in the area of arts, a commitment in the next financial year of an increase in the arts sponsorship dollars of $250 000 each year.
One of our key strengths is that we are a successful multicultural society, and we are very proud of our ethnic communities and the way they interact with each other. In this regard, we are, I believe, a model for the rest of Australia. In recognition of this, we have increased, by $250 000 per annum, funds available through the Office of Ethnic Affairs in support of multiculturalism. Commencing in the next financial year, the Ethnic Affairs sponsorship program will increase from the current $447 000 a year to nearly $700 000 a year. This makes it, in dollar terms, the fourth largest of its type, after New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, but in per capita terms, we are ten times bigger than the next most generous program in Australia, and that is in the ACT.
In conclusion, when we look at the Territory’s potential, there is boundless scope for economic and social development, while building a united and prosperous community. We believe people want strong communities, with good health care and a decent education, and the chance for them and their children to improve job prospects and living standards. We have great potential as a region, and the main reason for that is our resilient and resourceful people. When we think of what we have achieved already, we can be confident about the future. Let’s not be limited by an old-fashioned, unimaginative vision of what the Territory is. Instead, let’s open our minds to the big opportunities that lie before us.
I have given this parliament a broad look at some of the major programs and activities for the coming twelve months. My ministers will be making further detailed reports and statements to this parliament over the next few days, and I urge members to take careful note of these programs which I know will be of interest for all Territorians. I am confident that if we can work together in real partnerships, we can achieve this vision for a truly united Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, this statement today purports to be the Chief Minister’s vision for where the government is going over the next 12 months. President Bush, Mk 1 had a few problems with vision. Every time President Bush Mk 1 talked about vision, he always had a lot a problem trying to enunciate it to people. Certainly, what we are seeing with this Chief Minister is a number of visions.
She had a vision on the Northern Territory prior to the election. She had a vision that she brought out when eventually she brought down the mini-budget, and now we find that there is another vision for the first twelve months of government.
A member interjecting.
Mr BURKE: You can call that blurred vision or double vision or triple vision, whatever it is. But the real thing is this, this is a government that has promised to hit the ground running. This is a government that said they had a plan prior to the election, ‘Bring on the election, we have our plan, we are ready to run’. Well, we are still waiting for the plan. We are getting plenty of vision, we are still waiting for the plan. What we are seeing is that public servants have been well and truly gutted. That is the only action that I have seen, so far, in this government. A well and truly gutted the public service.
Mr Kiely: Forgotten Planning for Growth already, haven’t you? Pruning for growth, they used to call that one. Talk about visions. Foundations for Our Future - what a crock!
Mr BURKE: I will pick up on the member for Sanderson. I was not going to raise this in detail, but we will talk about it. You cannot help that you have one of those runaway motor mouths. You ought to put your brain into gear first and you will learn a lot.
I simply ask members to make a point of comparison, if you like. If you want to see the difference between real vision, a real demonstration of where the Territory is going, have a look at the old Foundations for Our Future. Have a look at the six booklets that were produced, and have a look at the detail that was in those books. The current Chief Minister described them as a glossy, but I tell you what, if you listened to that ministerial statement today, most of it is in Foundation Five.
Most of it is in Foundation Five, and that part of it that is in Foundation Five that she talked about today, is really poorly presented in the ministerial statement she gave today. If you want to get some more information about the knowledge economy, if you want to find out how timber processing could occur in the Northern Territory, if you want to talk about the Desert Knowledge project and how that could go ahead, have a look at Foundations for our Future and you will learn a lot. You certainly won’t learn it from this ministerial statement.
In fact, the first thing I would say about this ministerial statement from the Chief Minister is: why did you bring it? I have sat and heard some pretty lousy ministerial statements in the time that I have been in this House, but this would have to rank as one of the worst in terms of, first of all, it comes from the Chief Minister and secondly, it is so lacking in anything that has any sort of details or anything that you can grab onto, that has any meat, anything that does not refer to consulting more, planning more, establishing a new bureaucracy, considering this a bit longer, delaying this, reorganising ourselves. If you try and weave through and find anything else besides that, all you end up with is the CLP capital works program. That is all you end up with. And then she has the gall to point to those programs and claim some sort of ownership for them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you that I am just amazed that the Chief Minister would allow it, because these things are prepared by the Department of the Chief Minister. They scurry around the departments to find out what people are doing: ‘Quick, get some stuff together so we can get it together in a ministerial statement to show that the government is doing something’. And after all of that effort, this is it? This is the plan for the Northern Territory over the next 12 months? This is a total disgrace! To bring it out, to trot into this House and say: ‘This is where we are going in the Northern Territory’. Gee whiz, it really is.
It reflects this - it reflects that there is nothing going on. That is what it reflects, because they have scurried around and they have found nothing. So they said: ‘Gee, what do we do? We’ll pull together some stuff. Let’s go to the old Foundations for Our Future. We’ll talk about this, this and this. That will give us some waffly statements to make. And let’s point to the capital works program and that will do us. That will do for our plan for the next 12 months’. That is what has happened in this ministerial statement.
This is a clear demonstration of a government that is floundering. Either the public servants are floundering because they are waiting for direction or they are waiting for funding in terms of focussing their own effort, or you have a situation where there is no direction coming from the government or, probably what is most likely, you have a government sitting back and probably all becoming very good Christians and praying every night that things get better. Let’s just hope that 26 years of CLP effort pays off. That is the important thing. When you want to talk about where the Northern Territory is going in the future, what are the things that are going to make us great, spend a little time in reflection. It takes time, it takes effort, and what you are seeing now and the sort of things you are trotting out, is the culmination in many respects of a lot of CLP effort, a lot of hard work. You certainly won’t improve things by more bureaucracies, more consultation, and certainly focussing your effort in the areas which won’t create one job.
The most important indictment of that, reflected in the statement today, is the Yellow Pages. The Chief Minister points to the fact that she is grateful for the support of Territorians for her fiscal strategy. Well, I will tell you what the support of Territorians for her fiscal strategy is: business confidence in the Northern Territory six months ago was 41% and, more often than not, was closer to 50%. November, go back years. We stood up and we proudly pointed to the fact that business confidence in the Northern Territory was the best in Australia. You read the business confidence Yellow Pages Report and even the reporters themselves were astounded. This was the second time. It is getting worse. What is happening in the Northern Territory? 41% six months ago was business confidence in government. Let’s get is straight - this is business confidence in government. In November, it went from 41% down to 5% - plus 5%. And now, in February it is minus 12% - negative 12%.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BURKE: Can you believe that it is negative 12%? Can anyone believe that business confidence in the government after seven months in office is now negative 12%? And don’t say it is 11 September; that is not business confidence in government. This should have …
Mr Stirling: No, a little bit to do with your deceit on the budget.
Mr BURKE: The Deputy Chief Minister says it has a bit to do with our deceit in government. If that is the case, follow your own logic. Business should be confident in the fiscal strategies that you are bringing forward. Business should be confident in the fact that we now have a government that has a hold of these financial issues, is working to our benefit, is bringing forward policies that will be good for our business. By seven months in office they should have seen all of that. What do we have? Negative 12% - it is an absolute disgrace. That is the support of Territorians for you at the moment. You are the nose, big time. Read the Yellow Pages Index and it is getting worse.
Let’s just quickly pick through this waffle, then I will give it all a rest. Page 1: ‘We are now starting to get a message across for others that this is an exciting place for investors …’. Now starting to get the message across. What happened in the last 26 years? What happened in the last five years? Has there been a void in these things? What have you done? What have you done in getting your message across to investors? Tell us. I look forward to hearing all of the initiatives that you have brought forward to get your message across to investors that it is an exciting place for investors to live. ‘My government took office last year with a fully costed plan for reform …’. Well, not quite fully costed. There was a $55m save on wasteful consultants that you were going to cut to $5m.
Mr Henderson: Your black hole, that wasn’t factored into it.
Mr BURKE: Well, we had a consultant black hole. We now have a business confidence black hole. I tell you, if I stand up I would rather have the black hole that existed six months ago than the business black hole you have at the moment. $50m miscalculation in ‘our fully costed plan for reform’. And ‘I appreciate the support of Territorians as we go through some temporary adjustments’. Now, the temporary adjustments are this: gut the public service. A government that pointed to high debt levels in the Northern Territory, railed every day saying: ‘The highest per capita debt all around Australia’. First thing they do, borrow another $100m. The fact is that the punters have not figured that out, out there yet. They have not figured it out yet, but they will eventually. That the first thing you do - a government that railed against high deficit, that said the debt levels in the Northern Territory were totally unacceptable, the first thing they do in government - borrow another $100m. Then what do they do? They put $90 registration levies on the average punter’s individual car. That really was well received, and I am sure that has the strong support of Territorians.
Mr Kiely: Constituents. Have a bit of respect for them. Punters! No respect, and that comes all the way through in everything you do. No respect for the people.
Mr BURKE: The member for Sanderson wants to give a ministerial statement. Do you want to comment in this House? I am happy to let you go.
What we are looking for now is what other taxes and charges are going to be brought in. That is what I would like to see. If they are getting their fiscal circumstances in order, I want to see what other taxes and charges they are going to bring in, or what guarantee they are going to give to Territorians that those taxes and charges won’t occur.
‘We have special programs for Aboriginal development’. Now, what are those special programs? Because if there are special programs that have been introduced for indigenous development in the last six or seven months, I would like to hear what they are. But certainly I am not aware of them, and it is not good enough for a Chief Minister to say, we have special programs and then not pointing to one of those programs. ‘We are making progress on many issues and we are working smarter’. What issues? What issues are you making progress on that are very important, that you are working smarter and what will be the result of that smart work and that progress? Nothing in this statement, Mr Deputy Speaker, that points to the actions in this paper.
‘One of the first acts upon taking government was to set up the Office of Territory Development’. Haven’t yet got a chairman. A director. There is one person named Bob Collins who has a Landcruiser and swans around and is called the Ambassador for Territory Development. I understand that there is no director yet appointed to the Office of Territory Development. I might be wrong but that is what I understand. I understand they don’t even have an office yet. I understand they want to move into the 14th floor of NT House with good views but they are not there. If you are going to point to how good the Office of Territory Development is, one of the first things you could point to is they have themselves set up. That is not a lot to ask. Especially as it was a high priority of the Chief Minister and it was one of the first acts when she took government was to set up this office that does not have an office. It does not have anywhere to sit and does not have a director. After seven months in office.
‘The government has been working hard behind the scenes to bring Timor Sea gas to shore in Darwin’. Well, I look forward to you telling me what is the ‘behind the scenes’ work that this government, this Northern Territory government, has done to bring Timor Sea gas onshore to Darwin. And you point to the fact that you facilitated the agreement between Phillips and the East Timor government. Well certainly, the Australian Foreign Minister does not agree they facilitated the agreement between the Phillips company and the East Timorese government. Certainly the federal Minister for Resource Development does not believe they facilitated the agreement between Phillips and the East Timor government. In fact, I understand that both of them are pretty concerned that they were patting themselves on the back up here, suggesting that they had facilitated it.
It is one thing to have good relationships with the Prime Minister of East Timor, congratulations. You have good relations with Mr Alkatiri; congratulations. But don’t point to good relations with him to the fact that that therefore, because we get on well together, because we chat together that he is prepared to give away large monies in taxation to East Timor because you get on well. I mean, let’s get a bit more serious than that. What has the East Timorese government done? What concessions have they made? What concessions have Phillips made that you facilitated? Because that is what you are claiming. I don’t know, maybe I do need a briefing, but someone needs to tell me exactly you have done. Because, so far, all I have seen is, ‘we facilitated’. Well, tell us what you have done to facilitate.
The Chief Minister came into this House this morning and demonstrated her knowledge of this by saying that things have changed significantly for gas onshore in the last six months. Six months, she said, six months ago floating LNG was a possibility. Well, have you read the latest Woodside annual report? Ask if the Minister for Resource Development has because the latest Woodside report by Mr Akehurst for the first time ever, disappointingly so, has come out in favour of a floating platform for the Timor Sea. Disappointingly so, very disappointingly so. The first time that the Chief Minister comes in here today and suggests by implication, in her normal way, that somehow that issue has been resolved. That issue is worse than it has ever been. That is the fact of it. And we have some real difficulties and we will work through together.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister just asked me when I had my briefing. I had a briefing by a senior officer of the Department of Resource - OAD, whatever they call it; I have no idea what they call it now - who briefed me on directions from his own minister. I assume that is the briefing you intended me to have, to ensure I was fully briefed.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: If the Chief Minister would like to brief me personally, I am pleased to have it. I need to have those officers in the room because you do not have a clue what the issues are relating to gas onshore for Northern Territory. And it is certainly not a good situation with regard to the issues with floating LNG.
Ms Martin: Get a life.
Mr BURKE: The Chief Minister said: ‘Get a life’ - if you could expand on what that comment is supposed to mean. It seems to be her favourite comment, but it makes no sense to me.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said before, the delivery of gas onshore is very important to the Territory, it is very important that we work through these issues together. It is very important also that we give credit to the Commonwealth ministers and officers who have been involved, little of which I have seen so far. I understand that the Minister for Resource Development was ticked off when he got to Canberra because of some of the things that he said, or his Chief Minister had said, with regards to claiming things that they did not do and paying no cognisance to the work that has been done. And also to translate to Territorians and those investors that are critically interested in making decisions and real timelines and invest in the Timor Sea, when these projects realistically will occur.
It is one thing to talk about travelling all around the world talking to businesses, but the minister himself knows, and as I know, that without Sunrise Gas none of these other industries really will occur at Glyde Point. The issue of Bayu-Undan gas, the treaties resolved, the Commonwealth agreeing to the arrangements to be made between Phillips and the East Timor government, I am very hopeful that Bayu-Undan gas alone will flow to shore. It is quite another thing to then suggest that somehow the issues with regard to Sunrise are being worked through successfully and that the Northern Territory is poised to become the fourth gas hub. We all hope it does. But it is a long way off in terms of realising that and in terms of timelines, the best things that can occur, these issues are some way off because of the circumstances that have changed quite dramatically in the last six to twelve months.
‘My government is advanced in its plans for the development of Glyde Point and Middle Arm Industrial Estates’. That planning has to occur, I agree with that and that planning was well and truly in train prior to the change in government. ‘We are well advanced with our proposal to make the Territory the Gateway to Asia.’ That is a new phrase! That is a phrase I have never heard before: that we are going to become the Gateway to Asia. It has been the catch cry of CLP governments for the last 26 years and it is here that the Chief Minister has the gall to say, ‘with our proposal’ to make the Territory the Gateway to Asia. Be honest, be real and talk about what you are actually doing, rather than claiming things that you have no real personal effort in being involved in.
As I said before, the Chief Minister also points to efforts in tourism that are occurring. Efforts with regards to timber processing, chilled fish, tourism opportunities associated with the railway, and the Desert Knowledge project. The Desert Knowledge project was an election platform of the CLP government and also the CRC efforts were well in train long before the election and the submissions to the Commonwealth were being prepared over a very long period of time. These are not things for this coming year. These are things that have been in train, in progress and, in some cases, almost at fruition for some time.
‘Tropical knowledge is another area I have put on the agenda for the Office of Territory Development’. Tropical knowledge, it is all in the Foundations for Our Future. It has been around for ages. ‘I’ve put it on the agenda,’ she says. What about the special arrangements that we made to get CSIRO to establish a laboratory at a cost of $1m additional? Do you know why? To do tropical research. That was done some time ago. Decisions of a previous CLP government.
She talks about reviews to our Planning Act. Now that is something I would like to see. I would like to …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: ‘Plans to review the Planning Act’, it says here. I look forward to seeing those plans. I understand that the Labor policy will be to allow third party appeal. I am sure that will get the strong support of Territorians. Nothing except to say like other things here that after some time and after a year of consultation, legislative changes will eventually be brought into the House. Builders’ licencing, builders’ registration and indemnity insurance, good, problematic, look forward to see what is going to happen in that regard.
‘Negotiations with the federal government have been stepped up over the future of Lee Point …’ - something that was close to fruition. Defence Housing Authority have planned to build 300 homes there for some time but they want to get rid of …
Mr Henderson: But you couldn’t close the deal. We have.
Mr BURKE: We couldn’t close the deal! Because the Defence Housing Authority has a need to sell off all those old houses in the northern suburbs and move into new houses in the Lee Point area. Negotiations that we commenced with the federal government - there are problems with regard to issues in handing over that land because of the platform of the radar and other things, but I certainly expect that to be settled as soon as possible.
They have a new process of tendering for provision of government office space - good. I hope that is honest, open, accountable, transparent. The Chief Minister says there is an independent probity auditor. I hope that occurs. I am told that Dennis Bree is going to developers and saying: ‘You put in 50% and we will take 50%’. ‘You put in 5000 m and we will take two-and-a-half’. Some of them are telling me that. I hope that is honest, open, and accountable. I would like to know - and I would have thought it would be a very easy thing for the Chief Minister to do when she talks about the public’s support for getting this office space - surely you could give us an indication of what office space is actually needed? What government departments do you intend to move? What vacant office space will be left? Surely, that is not too much to ask in terms of telling us what the requirements are, what the good planning is that is occurring, and how are these processes going to be followed through. Because we certainly don’t want a situation where for the sake of getting development at any cost, we have a situation where there is inordinate amount of vacant office space in a time when the Territory is suffering a severe financial situation, particularly with the economy.
‘Key initiatives for the Minister for Resource Development …, I would say the first priority would be to take over from the present Chief Minister. That would be his first priority. The other priorities that he would have here, as I said, the key initiatives are all contained in Foundation Five. There is a mention here about the Year of the Outback. What are you doing about the Year of the Outback? I would like to know. It is this year. This is the plan of vision for this year. What monies have been allocated for the Year of the Outback? I hope there have been some substantial monies allocated to the Year of the Outback because that is a very important issue.
She then goes on to talk about other issues to be tackled over the coming months: work health reform, workers’ compensation, HIH. We asked before, during the mini-budget, whether there were going to be new taxes involved, new charges involved. We are still waiting for any sort of indication as to what is going on.
Then it goes on to say in the area of public works, there is a very large amount of activity occurring. Railway - CLP initiative, all set, all done. Game, set and match long before you came to government. The only thing that I recall was a continual carping criticism about what jobs might come from that railway, whether it was of benefit to the Northern Territory and how under no circumstances should the Northern Territory government put in any more money to facilitate that financial situation being closed. That is what I recall about your support for the railway. ‘$175m in business won by Darwin companies’ - good. Only 112 people employed. I am not criticising; I am simply saying I would like some information as to how the $175m in business won by Darwin companies only translates to 112 people employed. It seems to me there should be a better result for that $175m.
They then go on to talk about $11.3m development of Alice Springs Convention Centre. This is the Chief Minister’s plan for the coming 12 months. She points to the $11.3m development of the Alice Springs Convention Centre. Game, set and match long before she came into government; CLP initiative. Good to see it is on time, on target. $30.7m for Alice Springs Hospital development; another CLP initiative. $87m for East Arm Port development; another CLP initiative. $37.7m for Royal Darwin Hospital; CLP initiative. $1m for Tanami upgrade - we spent the best part of $1m every year to conduct essential upgrade works on that road. This is not major improvement; this is essential to restore that road after the Wet Season, so there is nothing to crow about there. And the $6m construction of the high level Hugh River Bridge and approaches - a Commonwealth contribution – good to see it is going ahead.
The Chief Minister talks about policies with regard to Aboriginal developments. I am sure the member for Arafura must see these things as motherhood statements by now. ‘Main priorities are Aboriginal economic development including jobs and training’ - been said continually for years. ‘Introduction of a broad model of regional partnerships for delivery of services’ - oh yeah? What’s all that about? No detail.
‘Resolution of outstanding land issues’ - hope you make progress on that, really do. I would be interested to know what cases that were in the courts have now all been resolved, whether or not there is no need for litigation. You claim to have such an incredibly good relationship there would be no need for any of that litigation. The Chief Minister used to say: ‘All you need to do is sit down and talk about it.’ It would be interesting to see if the Solicitor-General is out of a job. We have sat down and talked about it as a government and those vested interests, and got it all going, and improving outcomes in the areas of health, justice and education.
‘The NT has never had a jobs plan’. The Chief Minister says the NT has never had a jobs plan. Well, I will tell you what: the jobs plan we had in the Northern Territory saw some of the lowest unemployment figures in Australia for many, many years. The jobs plan that is actually happening in the Northern Territory, the jobs plan that this government has put in place is 8.4% unemployment, historically high and an absolute disgrace in any government of any kind. You should be ashamed to be sitting with not only a situation where we have the second highest unemployment in Australia coming from what was an historically excellent situation to a drastic situation in the space of seven months, but also, coupled with that, historically low levels of business confidence - minus 12%, which is an absolute disgrace, particularly when you put those two issues together.
There is nothing to crow about in this statement. There is no detail in this statement. I am interested in the comments the Minister for Health and Community Services will make either in response to this statement, and in other statements, because there are certainly a lot of issues here. The Chief Minister talks about she will be discussing the extension of after-hours GP services. I would like to know what context you are going to talk that about that in. Does that mean that you are restoring GP services to Palmerston? I don’t agree. I don’t believe you need 24-hour GP services in Palmerston; I believe you need a paramedic or a registered nurse - and I have said this consistently, and it is a cheap model and it should be put in place because the people want it, and that is: you have a 24-hour service system that requires that after perhaps 10 o’clock at night - could be earlier - a qualified registered nurse essentially triages those who come there. If those who have to go to Royal Darwin are in the hands of the system at a place like Palmerston and the system then transports them to Darwin Hospital - that is why we co-located St John Ambulance there. But she says here, extension of after-hours GP services in Darwin and Alice Springs Hospital so I am interested in seeing what initiatives come from that.
In summary, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can only reiterate that if this is the Chief Minister’s plan for the coming year, she has no plan. If this is the Chief Minister’s plan of action for the coming year, there is no action. And if this is the example of the activity of departments under this new Labor government, there is no action. This is what this ministerial statement says. This ministerial statement is a disgrace and it is reinforced by the fact that we have historically high unemployment and we have an historically high lack of business confidence in the Northern Territory. The Chief Minister should stand condemned.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to see a little more life in the other side. It is always sad when the Leader of the Opposition is left to stand and prosecute all on his own. It is one thing to empty the galleries up here and it is probably approaching the dinner hour, anyway, but it is another to hit members from your own side of the Chamber except for the member for Greatorex.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe the member on his feet is reflecting on the absence or otherwise of people in this House which offends standing orders.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Withdraw that, please.
Mr STIRLING: I will withdraw the comment that the opposition benches seemed - what can I say? - less than full. Less than full, Mr Deputy Speaker, less than full. But it is very clear, very clear, that the Leader of the Opposition is still in denial. One wonders, listening to him this evening, how on earth they lost the election. If all that he said was true, how on earth did they lose the election? He is certainly in denial on the question of whether, when we were on that side of the House, we supported the railway. And the Leader of the Opposition would remember a conversation we had at the back of the Chamber on the night that you brought the last bill in on the railway - the ‘whatever it takes’ bill - and I raised the question at the briefing: ‘Why isn’t this capped at a certain number of millions of dollars?’ I could not get the answer at the briefing. They said: ‘We suggest you talk to the Chief Minister. We suggest you talk directly to the Chief Minister’. And we had that little discussion up here at the back of the Chamber. We supported that bill, whatever it took, and you come in here and say you never supported the railway.
Every bill that ever came in to this House was supported by this side of the House when we were in opposition. I do not want to dwell too much on what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. But I thank the member for Sanderson for putting this in front of me. It is ‘$1.5bn gas pipeline deal gets okay’, Sunday Age, 23 December 2001, by Rob McGirke and Linda McSweeny:
- Mr Alkatiri said ‘an important factor in the equation …
He is talking about arrangements with Phillips:
Mr Alkatiri said ‘an important factor in the equation was the election of Labor’s Clare Martin, a long time
friend, as head of the Northern Territory government’. He had been in conflict with her predecessor, the
CLP Chief Minister, Denis Burke.
Well, we had better let that one rest there. He wants to know what we have done, he wants to know what the Chief Minister has done. Read that one for a start.
The ministerial statement delivered by the Chief Minister today, and the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition that we just heard, provide such dramatic contrast, it really does, and it really does confirm what the voters of the Northern Territory realised six months ago, the Chief Minister does have the vision and the energy necessary to take the Territory forward. Last November, in her mini-budget, she mapped out the pathway of putting the Territory’s fiscal position back into a sustainable one, and we were told very clearly on election that it was totally unsustainable. So she mapped out the road to repairing the fiscal inheritance of the former CLP government, and her responsible mini-budget contrasts, as I said, dramatically with the economic vandalism of those opposite and the mess that they left us to inherit on election in August.
It is incredible to me that even once the truth of the black hole was out there, and the dimensions of it, that all that the Leader of the Opposition could come up with was the mantra, ‘spend, spend, spend, the money is there’, tears in his eyes, ‘spend, spend, spend’. Well, that is what they have been doing, and the Territory was broke, broke and getting broker. And they were kicked out of office just in time from the point of view of the Territory.
So today, on the first sitting day of 2002, in her statement, the Chief Minister spelt out an action plan, a plan of the immediate and of the future and I think Territorians will be well pleased with their choice back in August last year to make Clare Martin Chief Minister, because she has already shown her capacities to date. Her statement today makes it clear that over the next 12 months we will continue to see responsible, active government under her leadership. I am delighted with the priorities that she mapped out. I look forward to the year ahead. Our plans for the Territory, we know, are ambitious, we know that, but we are not going to sit still. Our duty is, first and foremost, to repair the mess that the former minister for Health contributed to in such a big fashion, single handedly. But as the Chief Minister’s statement outlined, our priority is to deliver for all, so the Chief Minister successfully balanced the need to responsibly develop the economy and simultaneously make the Territory a better place to live for all. I am excited about doing my bit in my areas of portfolio responsibility - more police, more teachers, better schools, better outcomes. And the last six months have been good …
Ms Carney: Where are they?
Mr STIRLING: Well, ‘Where are they?’, she says? For 26 years they presided over a decline in the quality of education. We have been here 180 days, and they say: ‘Where are they?’ A hospital system that was falling apart, and you have the temerity to say: ‘Where are they?’, you goose!
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr STIRLING: The last six months have been good, and the next period will be even better, having heard the Chief Minister outline that program today. This year alone will see an extra 20 teachers come into the system, the first instalment against those extra 100 over this term of office. In consultation with the Australian Education Union - something they weren’t very good at - the focus for recruitment for those 20 teachers in this first year will be English as a Second Language qualified and Special Needs trained, with perhaps the balance tending to the number of Special Needs. We know that the CLP refused to put on the specialist teachers and refused to address the equity issues, particularly in regional and remote areas, raised by the lack of these teachers.
In indigenous education, the Learning Lessons implementation task force will have their first meeting in the next couple of weeks, unlike our predecessors, who warmly embraced the Collins report for about 48 hours - from memory, 48 hours. They said it is the most wonderful thing they have ever seen, and then failed to ever mention it again. When the former shadow minister for Education, the member for Stuart, railed against their inaction on this every sittings after it was tabled, wanting to know what and how many of the recommendations had been implemented, it was ‘don’t mention the war’. They went to ground, they went to ground.
We will work towards implementing the recommendations, because we want to overcome the culture of failure perpetuated by the CLP and we want indigenous students to succeed in their studies. We want them to learn. I am encouraged by the positive stance taken by the new federal minister for Education, one Dr Brendan Nelson. In stark contrast to these turkeys opposite, he stood outside NTU about a month ago - and I met with him as recently as 7 am this morning for breakfast to go over a couple of these issues again - in stark contrast to these turkeys, he stood before the cameras and said: ‘Whatever else occurs while I’m Minister for Education, whatever else occurs across Australia, I will believe I have failed unless we can turn outcomes around in indigenous education’. I salute him for that remark, for the courage that it took, unlike you blokes who would not even sign off on an agreement because it demanded that you sign off to improve outcomes in indigenous education. Well, it is a big difference. Brendan Nelson is a big bloke compared to you turkeys, and I am proud to stand with him, on the other side of the political fence, because he has more guts and more balls than you will ever have.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw the last remark, but it is true. We as a government share his vision, as opposed to these blokes opposite, who simply could not bring themselves to committing to improved outcomes. ‘Hang your money, hang your $12m, we’re not interested. You are demanding that we oversee an improvement in outcomes for indigenous students’. You don’t want it. I tell you, in the two or three weeks when I became aware of it on becoming a minister, I spoke with Dr Kemp by phone, and he was most appreciative that we were prepared to sign off on improved outcomes for indigenous students and very happily picked up the millions of dollars at stake. Well, it is a crying shame the attitude these blokes took to indigenous education. They stand absolutely condemned in relation, and in contrast, to the new federal Minister for Education who is worth the whole ten of them together, and more.
The same commitment we bring to indigenous education will be found in our approaches to health and housing, training and employment and encouragement of indigenous enterprises in indigenous communities. They have been left to languish behind the development of the rest of the Territory in economic terms. It is the failure of the CLP to stand up and address these issues over the past 26 years that has lead to chronic unemployment in these communities and growing substance abuse. That is part of the legacy left by the CLP that we won’t resile from. They are very real challenges and we take them head on.
I heard a gentleman a couple of weeks ago in Nhulunbuy who was in Yirrkala in the mid-1960s prior to the Nabalco joint venture taking off. He had one of three vehicles at the time on the peninsula and he used to take the local Yolgnu out on hunting and fishing expeditions. He told me that when he was at that community in the mid-1960s, all of the local Yolgnu living at Yirrkala were all employed in meaningful employment in a range of community levels. He could not believe, coming back to Nhulunbuy in 2002, walking around the community and into the council office, that he found one blackfella working in the council office but he found a whole lot of non-Aboriginal people filling all of the full time jobs. That is the challenge before us, and we will take it on because, unlike the CLP, we are prepared to face down these challenges head on and broker partnerships to build a better future for us all.
Those initiatives and commitments will be underpinned by the development of a high-level policy unit in the Department of Chief Minister with the ability to provide advice on a whole-of-government basis. We know that we are not going to turn around 27 years of neglect by our political opponents overnight. We recognise that. It is a bit cute to come in and say: ‘Where are they? Where are they?’, after six months. I mean, where do you get off? But we will certainly give it our best shot over the next three-and-a-half years.
We will tackle drug law reform. We know the problems being caused by drugs and those who profit from them. We know the links to property crime with hardened drug users. The CLP defeated meaningful amendments put forward by us last year in debate. The member for Wanguri nods because he was part of that debate as well. Those amendments would have more effectively empowered police, but they did not want to know, because they were about grandstanding. They were about grandstanding and heavily into posturing, but they did not want anything that would adequately move to effectively address those serious problems of drug trafficking and manufacturing.
Whilst we have been putting the basic building blocks in place, I think it is an opportunity to look, in fact, at what the opposition has done in the six months since the election. What have they done towards preparing the road map for where they want to take the Territory? Their politics of division, the credit card economics, were rejected six months ago when they received their worst election outcome in history. Today provided an opportunity to perhaps turn the page over and gave the opposition an opportunity to provide Territorians with an insight into what they have learnt from the voters, and what they will do and promote over the next twelve months or so. The Opposition Leader is the spokesperson, so it was his speech in that sense. But you would have expected it to reflect the thoughts and priorities of the CLP shadow ministers. What they revealed today to me is that the Leader of the Opposition and, in fact the entire opposition team, has wasted its first six months in opposition and it has learnt absolutely nothing from what the voters had to say six months ago. And when we see how they have spent their time since the election defeat, it is hardly surprising that today’s effort really is so disappointing. Because if we look at the priorities of the Opposition Leader over recent times, his landmark contributions to public debate up until the run-up to Christmas largely centred around how tough things were, how hard things were for him. His emotional outburst - certainly before Christmas - centered around the fact that he was not getting the media attention that he previously got. And, of course this year more recently, he has been focussed on the amount of taxpayers’ funds he and his personal staff consume.
Well, last Friday was a ripper - an absolute abomination. It said it all, because this is what he said last Friday. He told Territorians of his plan to shut his office down because he should have more money. He should have more money! The one who squandered it, the bloke who put us into debt to about $130m, was going to close the doors because he had to wear budget tightening of 21% when ministers on this side of the House wore a budget cut of 27%. And the Treasurer is still to explain to me how they get away with a 21% cut while we have to take a 27% cut. Now, that is a tantrum - a tantrum put on by the Leader of the Opposition that shows how this opposition, as a whole, is serving the Territory. And I have wondered if the Chief Minister and Treasurer got a submission from the Leader of the Opposition along the lines - as we saw reported in the NT News – ‘Give us more money or close us down’. Because I for one, if it got to Cabinet in the form of a Cabinet submission, would be looking pretty closely at option two.
I asked my staff to ring Jim O’Brien when I saw it in the paper. I said: ‘Ask Denis and Jim to come up for a bit of chat. I am a bit keen to explore option two’. Well, they did not come up. But now, if it is the truth that they have to close the doors, hand on our hearts, this is the last time, presumably, we will have a formal opposition in this Chamber. When we come back here - whenever we do at the next sittings - we will be facing not an opposition of ten and an Independent in the Chair and Independent from the seat down here, we will have not two but twelve Independents. That means no Whip, that means no Leader of the Opposition, that means no Deputy Leader. Good, good. Good for the Territory, save the bottom line.
Well, I would have thought that the opposition should consider itself lucky. We copped the 27% cut, he gets away with just 21%. Well, I say welcome - welcome to the reality of opposition. I did it for 10 years; it ain’t easy. I admit that. I did it for 11 years.
It is important to keep the opposition there, and we do not want them to abandon that status, because the opposition really is there to balance the democracy and keep the government on its toes and to offer an alternative approach. But I don’t blame, single handedly, the Leader of the Opposition for the abysmal performance here this evening because he has been let down and betrayed by those around him. Whether they were in the Chamber or not, matters nought. He has been let down and his party room is a hot house of would-bes. Would-bes if they could-bes, and broken down hacks - one eye on the golf course and one eye on the super bill ticking away - ticking away. How long to go? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, for one, has provided no support. He has been spotted sunning himself in Queensland. His appearances in public have been rare and really only brought about by his attempt to defend the indefensible in his reign as Treasurer. Now, the deputy should either stand by his leader or get out, it is as simple as that. And the would-be if they could-be leaders apparently have had no focus in developing and working the opposition into a position on good public policy, or even being prepared to do the things that a good opposition should be doing.
The first would-be if he could-be leader, the member for Drysdale, of course, is in this rather difficult position of being in the centre of the storm over manipulation of budgets and his involvement as former health minister in preparing budget figures and, of course, trying to distance himself from the fact that he presided over a failing health system. And health was a key issue in the last election. A key area where Labor was overwhelmingly preferred by the voters. Now, what that says about you, sunshine, you work out yourself. But it is a fact he was a failure. And of course, it is hard for his colleagues and it is hard for Territorians to forget just how poor a minister he was. We could have heard about the new plans the member for Drysdale has for health. Huh? Nothing.
We have not heard much from the next wanna-be leader, the member for Daly. Now, the media says he is a would-be if he could-be, but I am not sure. The member for Daly has gone to sleep, I think. He certainly has not been up to a lot during the last six months. He is a shadow minister. Where was his input in the leader’s speech this evening?
Member for Araluen - perhaps a would-be if she could-be. I am not sure myself. Now, I am told the member for Araluen once shared a little bit of the Chifley vision, the light on the hill, whether she thought she was a true believer or not. I am actually quite keen to follow this up with the member for Araluen at some point because, if it certainly was true, well, somehow she finished on the wrong side. But now that she is elected I am told that she tells her associates that her plan is to reform the CLP from within. Well, I like the member for Araluen. She is quick, she has a great sense of humour, and I think sometimes she finds it difficult to stick to the script of those around her, particularly when the current Leader of the Opposition and his deputy seek to rewrite history and go into denial, which we have seen yet again this evening. As for her leadership aspirations, I don’t know. I certainly won’t be asking her about that - that is her business. But it does not seem to me that she has gone all that far out of her way to contribute to the Burke-led opposition. Now, I looked for her contribution to the Opposition Leader’s speech tonight - nothing.
The member for Goyder, when he put his press release out bagging politicians for going on holidays a few days after the Leader of the Opposition took off for the first of his series of interstate and overseas holidays, well, you would reckon he would have to fancy his chances because he was certainly putting himself in the gun to have a go. All we knew about him before he arrived was that he used to be up there defending Hell’s Angels in court in his previous occupation. He used to own the big disco down the road. Then more recently, we hear he is the CLP’s pick to replace the current leader. Still come for nothing. I mean, we heard nothing. We heard nothing of the member for Goyder inside that speech today. No ideas, no plans for the Territory.
The rest have let him down, too. An older hand, member for Port Darwin, now works absolutely flat out; the onerous responsibility of party Whip, not an easy role. I did it in opposition. This is the first time in the Territory’s history that the party Whip in opposition does not also carry shadow ministerial responsibilities. So, for 33 days of the year she has the task of marshalling herself and her eight colleagues, but appears to have no role and no responsibility in contributing to policy development or contribution to debate. She has offered no support to her leader but, like her colleagues, appears set to, and committed to, maintaining a low profile while the current leader is left to float.
The member for Blain has changed his stripes a bit. We heard about his aptitude for the guitar in his former role as school principal but, really, most of us would not have been all that aware that he was in parliament for the last three years. It is interesting, I think, for those of us who were here to compare his presence and his contribution to that of the outstanding contribution by the member for Wanguri over the same time frame because the by-elections were held at that same time. The member for Blain, of course, was happy to ride on the coat tails of one Barry Coulter, and the Mayor of Palmerston. But since about six months ago, I think we have seen much more of a burst of activity, but all centered around keeping his own seat in Palmerston because he realises, along with the rest, that the Burke Backyard era is coming to a close, and he will have to earn the seat by himself. There will be no Barry Coulter and the likes of Burke Backyard to get him over the line in three or three-and-a-half years time.
The Leader of the Opposition stands condemned for his neglect and failure, but so also do his colleagues because they have let him down and in letting him down, have let the Territory down. I think it is a cruelty in Country Liberal Party politics that the very people who undermine their leader are the ones who will of course be lining up to cash in on his failings when the leadership challenge has materialised, as materialise they certainly will.
Alongside the betrayers in the parliament here, of course, is the Country Liberal Party machine. And you have to ask, how can a man, how can a woman, how can anyone, run an opposition successfully when you have senior party officials running around blaming him entirely for last year’s election result? The Country Liberal Party really does have to get behind their leader, whoever it is, in that fight to provide an effective opposition.
Mr Dunham: And you’re a united pack?
Mr STIRLING: He can scoff, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am trying to be helpful here. I am trying to be a bit helpful. What I would say to those party officials who are so keen to undermine the Leader of the Opposition, well, it is very easy for them to knock, but at least he is having a go. At least he is having a go. I think the worst offenders of all in a debate such as this, and they are not too up-front about it – they are always whispering behind closed doors - are the ones who never sought public office in the first place, never put themselves on the line, or they left public office a long time ago but now want to rewrite history for themselves and blame everything on the Opposition Leader and his staff. And it is true. The Opposition Leader’s staff must carry some responsibility for poorly advising their boss when overseeing the election result. It is also true they were behind the failure of the statehood referendum. But the criticism of the staff is unfair because it was up to the party and it is up to parliamentarians to step in when those failures loomed. So bagging the staff is really tantamount to bagging the leader who picked them. What I would say to those betrayers and underminers is, leave the staff alone.
The time for leaking and the time for undermining is over, and the time for getting behind your leader really has arrived. If you do not like him and you want a new leader, chuck him out, but stop undermining him and stop putting him out there on a slow burn. It is incumbent I think on each member of the Country Liberal Party to show …
Members interjecting
Mr STIRLING: Well, he laughs, but it is up to him. It is incumbent on the member for Drysdale to show that he could do better. Well, I ain’t seen it. I am not seeing it. As today’s speech manifests, the current Opposition Leader is history, but it is up to people like the member for Drysdale. If he wants to have a go, it is up to him to show the public that he is in a position able to take over from him. It really is up to individuals like the member for Drysdale if he is serious in his intent, or any of the members opposite who want to put their hands up, they have to put their cards on the table.
Territorians deserve to see from these members and from the CLP a little bit of a vision about what the CLP is going to do in opposition. Use your press releases. We saw the member for Goyder out there, not very effectively I would have thought today, out on radio - but use your press releases, use your branch meetings, use your speeches in this place to outline a little bit of what you are about, like we did.
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: Yes, well, the member for Goyder says I have the looks, have the brains, just need the issue - I don’t think it is transfer of prisoners to Alice Springs.
There is a general business day tomorrow. That is an opportunity really for the would-bes if they could-bes to outline what they would do as opposition leader if they got the chance. What would the member for Drysdale do so differently? Why does he want to be leader, if he does want to be leader? What is his view on privatising hospitals, for example? He was a bit keen on it a few years ago. Does he agree the opposition office should be immune from the budget belt-tightening that is occurring? Would he keep all the old hands on in the Leader of the Opposition’s office? Would he promote new ideas and approaches? What would change if he got the nod?
Has the member for Daly come to grips with his inability to make decisions? Is he prepared to be more assertive and lead, or is the task beyond him? And of course, there are the new kids on the block as well. Are they prepared to wear the inheritance of the has-been, or do they want to set out on new paths? Did they agree with the deceitful way in which the budgets were prepared over the past few years by their leaders? Did they endorse the spend, spend, spend theory of government finances?
To continue to undermine without offering the alternative in the way that we have seen is, in its most serious sense, letting the Territory down. It means we have a crippled Opposition Leader and we will see Territorians left with only one credible approach. We will continue to see an opposition without direction and every suggestion that in three-and-a-half years time, the Country Liberal Party will offer Territorians nothing new.
Today’s reply to the Chief Minister’s statement was an indictment on the Leader of the Opposition, but it reflects on all the opposition and I think today they must draw a line in the sand. If you want to keep him as leader, start contributing. Stop putting out press releases which humiliate him, which the member for Goyder did. Stop backgrounding the media on the leadership issue which three or four of you did the other day when you were ringing the ABC. Stop ringing up government advisors and members and telling tales on each other. And start being seen with your leader in public. In here would be a start. If you want to go that way, you want to get behind him, you have to start being seen with him, you have to start suggesting questions for Question Time. Early in the life of this government we had one question asked eight times. Today, we had one question asked five times, and based upon a lie at that. Start coming up with some constructive ideas, start researching, start getting your facts straight, and for God’s sake, check the little memo or the document before you bring it in. But if you want to take his job you have to put your hand up and put your cards on the table.
The ministerial statement delivered today by the Chief Minister and the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition did provide a stark contrast and it does confirm, as I said, what the voters of the Northern Territory realised six months ago. It is clear to anyone listening to this debate today that the Chief Minister does have the vision and energy to take the Territory forward. She spelt out an action plan, as I said, a plan of the immediate and the future, and Territorians should be well-pleased with their choice to make Clare Martin Chief Minister.
She has already shown her capacities to date, and her statement today makes it clear that over the next 12 months, we will continue to see responsible, active government under her leadership. I congratulate the Chief Minister, and I commend her statement to the House.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure if the previous speaker was in a quandary or on the horns of a dilemma, but certainly I had to look at the statement three or four times to find out if this was what he was speaking to. It was a wide-ranging diatribe of the type he used to use in opposition, and I still think that is essentially the problem with this statement - the government has not come to grips yet with the fact that they are government.
Now, if you listen - freshen your ears - at the rubbish peddled out by the previous speaker, paraded as constructive advice to us about how we might run our lives and how we might come to grips with such issues as leadership and research and policies and stuff like that - he was granny sucking eggs a bit. And one wonders whether he was speaking to the main points of the Chief Minister when she said: ‘Today I want to report to this parliament on the government’s plan for the coming year …’. The government’s plan for the coming year is to worry about our organisation and how we run our affairs. ‘… to achieve our vision of stronger Territory, with better opportunities for all citizens. Our overall aim is to build a united Territory …’, says the Chief Minister, as her deputy spends most of his time being divisive which is, of course, his trump suit.
I, in my working life, have seen many, many ministerial statements and I can understand how this one was constructed. Essentially, it has the normal ingredient; it has the black hole ingredient. As you go through you see black hole, black hole, black hole, black hole, black hole. And then you go to the we-care-social-agenda stuff which has a couple of issues to it. We-care-and-you-don’t is the main issue. You have no idea, you don’t care about the underprivileged, whereas we do and we have a monopoly on caring. And then it talks about gas and the railway. We’ll all be saved because the gas and railway will come along and make everything good again. Then it runs a couple of colour items like the Desert Knowledge issue and Darwin being the gateway which is proudly proclaimed as, and I quote, ‘our proposal’, meaning the current government’s proposal, ‘to make Darwin the gateway’.
I think researchers to statements such as this will find a strange sense of dj vu because many of these things in here have been discussed in this parliament for a long time. In fact, the genesis of pretty much all of them, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, can be very easily and quickly tracked to coming from the minds of those people on this side who were previously in government.
Lee Point has a long history. Issues about tackling crime, and the far flung communities, and the Desert Knowledge, the gateway, the Darwin railway, desert zones. Tropical medicine has been spoken of many times and it is certainly something that has come from this side of parliament. It is a sad state in a way because it is partly a yearning for how things used to be, and we feel a bit that way and the citizens of the Territory feel a bit that way, too. But the government, too, is yearning for the past. It looks for the innovation that came, the remarkable strides forward that came in this place over many years, and in their own funny little way it is a quiet accolade for us because all of this stuff here is our stuff. That is a good thing. I feel pretty good about it. But on the other side, I feel sad because it is not going to last them long. For some of these things, the horizon is only out a year, a couple of years, and they cannot really trade off, not only the good will that we put in place, not only the great legacy we left them, but they are going to have to come up with some ideas of their own.
I have lived in this place for longer than 26 years, the fabled 26 years, and I guess I count myself among - I don’t know, maybe there is half a dozen of us been here longer than 26 years. It is trotted out as this terrible thing that we have looked after this place for 26 years and how bad it is. Well, I can tell you, go back and have a look. Go to the NT News and pull out the NT News from 26 years ago. Have a look at places like Katherine, Tennant. They did not have a municipal council. There was no such council as Litchfield. Many of the Aboriginal organisations did not exist. They were run by government instrumentalities or missions. The Northern Territory University was a dream and there were people like myself who were fortunate enough to travel to other places away from here to attend university. But for many of my colleagues I went to school with, they did not contemplate obtaining Year 12 because it was not something that was available to them, much less going to a tertiary institution.
So when you want to run this case about 26 years, the first thing you should do is go back 26 years and have a look. When you do it, you will see that in the time, the 26 years that so offended - mostly offended because I think you had your noses rubbed in it a bit. I mean, we remember the debates about the NTU. We know you did not support it. We know you did not support self-government. The Chief Minister herself did not vote for statehood. This is an indictment on this person who sat in this parliament and debated the issues, had a unanimous report to it and did not vote for statehood.
If you really want to run the case that we have had a terrible 26 years, I would suggest that you are not looking to re-brand some of these issues, you are looking to over-brand some of these issues. I am sure with your bovine knowledge, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would understand what I am talking about. This is a matter of cattle duffing, in a policy sense. What you have is these people over here carefully mustering the boundary, finding they have a yard full of policies with our brand on it and changing them. Now, that is pretty much what this ministerial statement is all about. It is about pinching ideas, pinching policies, scapegoating, pretending you have a vision. The vision thing is running about as dry as the black hole thing because all these buzz words about ‘we are going to do things whole-of-government, we are going to have a vision, we care about everything, everybody, everything will get good; it used to be bad but now they’ve gone and they’re the enemy, so everything will be good’. That sort of rhetoric really calls on us to look to data that describes how well you are going.
It is no good just saying: ‘We went to Brendan Nelson and said: “No worries. We are going to have an improvement in indigenous education”.’. We want to see it. We want to see if that means attendance at school. We want to see if that means more Year 12 graduates. We want to see how that goes with benchmarking literacy, numeracy and oracy. We want to see how that goes with issues in remote communities where there are very poor job prospects. For the member for Nhulunbuy parading in here and talking about the number of people of European racial origin working in Aboriginal councils is a bit cute because there are many people in this House, and in other places, who are not of Aboriginal descent who have worked with, and for and on behalf of, Aboriginal people. I can understand that jobs that are locally available should be available to Aboriginal people and I, too, am dismayed that in many communities where there are jobs available for people, they are not taken up.
The point I would make is that if he is saying that the current self-management structures that are in place are deficient in this sense and that councils somehow do not have the potency to decide who their workforce is, and that he is going to change, for instance, the Local Government Act, so that community government councils have some of these quotas built into them, he can say it, have the guts; have the balls like Brendan Nelson because I think they are things he could put on the record. He could say Yirrkala Community Government Council - sorry, the Yirrkala Association because it is not a community government council yet - has a very poor policy of Aboriginalisation of its workforce. It offends him as a member of the government, and he is going to intervene because that is what governments do. I mean, our job is to intervene in peoples lives. That is what we do.
We make laws and we say: ‘You can’t drive faster than that, and unless you obtain this age you can’t engage in those behaviours, and if you do certain things we find offensive, we lock you in a place that you can’t get out of’. That is what we do as parliaments. What he has to do with statements like this is get beyond the rhetoric. He has to say: ‘As a government, we are going to address the Yirrkala problem. We are going to do it. We are going to intervene and we are going to tell that self-managing council that they are doing the wrong thing. They do not have a clue. They are doing exactly the wrong thing’, and it offends Syd’s sensibilities to the extent that he is going to use this place to intervene in their lives. So, the rhetoric now falls due to him because he has to do it. He has the Treasury resources and he has the legislative capacity to intervene.
If he believes that we can we can get kids to school by some magic measure, if we can have $320 000 parading as a Youth Night Patrol and make some sort of an intervention there, he has to tell us what his benchmarks are because he knows, and I know, and everybody else knows, that somehow you have to measure it. The old days when you said: ‘We have a problem with kids on the street. Solution: $320 000 - problem fixed’, don’t work like that. The fact that you have spent the money is not the point. You have to be able to demonstrate that you spent the money doing something that worked. That is the challenge for the government. That is the challenge for the Chief Minister who I note is absent, Madam Speaker, which seems to be a cause of some concern for one of the previous speakers.
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker. He is referring to the absence of members.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you know you should not refer to members who are – would you withdraw that remark?
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, that is true, Madam Speaker, and I do withdraw it. I withdraw it because I think …
Madam SPEAKER: No, that is it. Unreservedly.
Mr DUNHAM: It is unreservedly withdrawn. I think it is something that should be in standing orders, that you should not be reflecting on whether people are in the House or not, and I am disappointed that the Deputy Chief Minister took so much of his speech in making that reflection. But then, that goes to his delinquent style, I suppose you could call it, where he chooses to do things, notwithstanding that they might not be entirely in accord.
His comment about all our problems, and the Alkatiri/Clare relationship and the Syd/Brendan Nelson relationship, and all that stuff, augers well for the future. That is true, that is true. It is really important that leaders make sure they use their capacities to advance the benefit of this place. To make sure that those relationships they make are such that they forge powerful bonds that, in the end, the beneficiaries are the people who pay the taxes here in the Territory.
That is something we are very proud of, because we were the first government to have an Asian Relations portfolio. We had a Cabinet with an Asian born member in it. We had very strong links to the nations to our north. We had the capacity for our Chief Minister to go to the Vice-President of the United States of America about the matters related to gas off our coasts. We also forged a meeting between the various players, Shell, Woodside and Phillips, with the Prime Minister of Australia. So, to run this story that Alkatiri thinks you are a good mate and that just broke the back of all the relationships, I think, of all the impediments to the problem is a bit trite. And while it is true because of Mr Galbraith’s intervention up there and his proximity to Dr Alkatiri in terms of advice, there were certainly some problems with that. But if the government would have us believe that they would have gone along the lines of Mr Galbraith’s advice, that is something that I would like to hear. Because certainly his advice, I am sure, would not be acceptable to any Territorian and it is an assault on our sovereignty and various other things, I am sure we would stand by.
Now, if Dr Alkatiri found that offensive that we were disappointed with the advice he was getting from Mr Galbraith, so be it. Because I for one do not resile from that position and if it is a position that is adopted by those opposite, let them say it. Because, as I am trying to say here, Madam Speaker, it is a matter of getting past it.
A member interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: I missed the interjection. I did believe that the member for Sanderson was a empty headed, boorish, obnoxious person. But I was wrong and I am happy to say I was wrong. Because I thought he was totally devoid of talent, but I went to the celebration commemorating the Bombing of Darwin. I saw him acting as a boorish, obnoxious, drunken, racist person totally devoid of talent and I thought, ‘Well, there we go, he does have a problem’.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr DUNHAM: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Sanderson!
Mr DUNHAM: I was trying to be polite, Madam Speaker. I was trying to say he did a damn fine job acting as a boorish, drunken, racist thug in that particular play. I am hopeful that it was acting because he did a damn fine job – it is the sort of thing that got accolades
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I really don’t see the relevance of these comments in terms of the ministerial statement.
Mr DUNHAM: I would like to speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I think you should get back to the topic you were talking about before and refrain from making any further personal remarks about the member for Sanderson. Could we get back on to the debate.
Mr DUNHAM: The previous speaker, Madam Speaker, while you were absent from the House ran through every one of us on this side and he talked …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I was not present at the time. What is your point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: I was going to put a point of order on whether or not someone was in the Chamber or not.
Madam SPEAKER: Look, you are being a little bit frivolous.
Mr DUNHAM: I suppose I am seeking clarification, Madam Speaker, because obviously in this same debate there are going to be two attitudes about whether speakers can reflect on individual members in a helpful way, much the same way as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did about, for instance, treachery within the party and white-anting and setting people up and all of those things he talked about, which we listened to because we figured it afforded us the same opportunity to talk about them. Now, if by changing the Chair, Madam Speaker, that has changed also, I would hold by your ruling.
Madam SPEAKER: All I am asking you to do is to address your remarks to the statement in a dignified parliamentary manner. I am sure you can do that.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, that will be a vast change from the last speaker, Madam Speaker, and in hindsight I wish you had been in the Chair a bit earlier. My comments are coming to an end in any event because this statement is very shallow and, as I said, there is a sense of dj vu about it all.
It talks about things that were near and dear to us, things that we were involved in the construction of; the policies that we put in place, sometimes from ground zero. It’s a beautiful page, page 9. The $11m redevelopment of Alice Springs Convention Centre, that is one of ours. The Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment, yes, I reckon that might have been ours. East Arm Port development, Royal Darwin Hospital development, Tanami road, Hugh River Bridge, which we can’t claim, and neither can they because it is Commonwealth money. But if you look at this stuff in here, if the notion is to present this to people and say: ‘Look, there has been a lot of criticism about us doing nothing, sitting here and the wheels are spinning’, this is not going to serve the task, because I am sure readers of this debate will also hear railway, gas, all those wonderful things that are out there, the desert knowledge, the tropical medicine, and many of them will realise that this pre-dates this government. I am sure they will give credit where credit is due.
I am also happy to put on the record any day what has happened in this place over the last 26 years - any day - and I am happy to have the debate for those, the majority of whom former members of the government who were not here at that time, so that I can enlighten them about this particular piece of party rhetoric that they have taken to an art form where they try to make Territorians ashamed of what has happened over here over the last 26 years. It has been a monumental success. And for us to have been in government during that time is something that I take pride in. I am quite happy for them to trumpet from the rooftops that the last 26 years saw CLP rule, even though it is not true. And I have pointed that out to them too, because certainly in the case of health, it was after self-government which was 1978, so that is it less than 24 years. Nonetheless, if they want to say that the happenings in this place are marked by the influence of the CLP, I am happy to be a part of that because I think that influence was a very benevolent one and, certainly on behalf of myself as an individual, my family and others, I have benefited remarkably from the fact that we had far sighted people in the government from the CLP. And that is primarily why I joined the party.
I thank you for your indulgence, Madam Speaker. I find that I cannot commend the Chief Minister’s statement because I think it falls far short of her ambitions that she set out on page one.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I was not going to participate in the debate on this statement tonight, but I have to follow some of the comments from the member for Drysdale in terms of his reply to the Chief Minister’s statement. I really find it difficult to know where to start in terms of some of the comments that he was making. He talked about the inherited legacy that we as a new government have of 26 years of CLP rule. Now let’s actually honestly look at that legacy, and he pointed to the fact that if you looked at Katherine and Tennant Creek and Darwin and Alice Springs 26 years ago, what wonderful changes you have seen. All absolutely because of the great guiding hands and wisdom of CLP governments in the distant past. Now, let’s look at this legacy. Let’s look at this legacy honestly, and first of all let’s look at the legacy of the fiscal position of the Northern Territory.
The fiscal position of the Northern Territory, which we as government have inherited and we have a responsibility to manage, and also in terms of a responsibility to deliver to the community, let’s talk about this $1.3bn worth of debt that we have inherited from the former CLP government. $1.3bn worth of debt, the highest per capita debt by a factor of five of any other state across Australia, and in spite of the fact that of this money, of this $1.3bn debt, 80% of all funding that all previous Northern Territory CLP governments have had, has come from Canberra. 80 in every dollar that CLP governments have had to spend to create this wonderful lifestyle that they like to take credit for, and have taken credit for for 26 years, was funded from Canberra.
There was only a requirement on the political pain side of the equation to raise 20% of revenue. In terms of the comments that ‘we created this wonderful lifestyle, it is the legacy of the CLP. This is the legacy’ - no reference to the fact that Commonwealth governments have funded this. No recognition that Commonwealth governments, both Labor and conservative, over those 26 years, continued to fund. Any clown can spend money and this is what you guys did so profligately over 26 years. Any idiot can spend money - making money is the hard part. What we have inherited is $1.3bn worth of debt. A budget that was so totally dishonest and has been absolutely discredited, that showed a bottom line of $14m deficit for this financial year, which has in turn turned out to be somewhere in the region of $124m - not to fund our policy commitments but to cover the operational shortfalls that you so falsely presented in those budget papers and really will be the legacy of your last term of government.
Let’s look at the other wonderful legacy of that 26 years of CLP government - the absolute worst health outcomes in the nation by far. Recent reports have proven my colleague, the member for Johnston, a well-respected person in the medical community, term ‘deadly Territory’. So, the legacy that you have left us with is the absolute worst health outcomes in Australia for indigenous people, and the outcomes for non-indigenous people are nothing to be crowed about either.
Let’s look at those education outcomes. The absolute appalling - not travesty, I am trying to search for the word - the appalling neglect of the previous administration by failing to sign up to those outcomes, to take the $12m to put in indigenous education. Without doubt again, the worst education outcomes in Australia. Not only amongst our indigenous population, but also the non-indigenous populations. Without an education to equip people with the skills to take advantage of the new economies that are emerging, the Territory is going to struggle. So, when the member for Drysdale talks about this wonderful legacy, and members opposite talk so disparagingly of the Labor government’s social agenda, well, heaven help that this government has a social agenda that looks to improving educational outcomes for Territorians and improving health outcomes for Territorians. Heaven help that we have such an appalling agenda in government that we actually want to improve those two very vital benchmarks that really will underpin the success and lifestyle of the Territory for many, many years to come. We are absolutely committed to that, and we do not shirk from that.
We saw in terms of Question Time here today, we now know - and again the legacy of 26 years of CLP government - the legacy of the divide and rule, conquer-at-all-costs mentality of the former CLP. Credit to the Leader of the Opposition in the August election where he did not run a race-based campaign. Race was not an issue and I give him credit for that. But here we have the CLP Central Council, we have a lock up at Lake Bennett and they are confronted for the first time with an election loss, and an analysis that all political parties go through post an election, win or lose, in terms of ‘Where do we go from here?’
Political commentators quite rightly state that you win and lose government in the Northern Territory in the northern suburbs. The CLP quite obviously lost government in the northern suburbs. So what is the strategy out of the brains trust at Lake Bennett over the weekend? ‘We have to go back to the successful formula of divide and rule’. This is the legacy of the CLP of 26 years, to divide Territorians. And we have seen the first Question Time today, the first Question Time since November - and a hell of a lot has happened since Lake Bennett - and heaven forbid, the Yellow Pages Business Survey. Now, we were in opposition for a long time, we know a good issue when it comes up. ‘No, we are not going to talk about that. What we are going to talk about is let’s throw a hand grenade, based on nothing but rumour and innuendo and some document floating around the Prison Officers Association …
Mr Ah Kit: Unsubstantiated.
Mr HENDERSON: Unsubstantiated. ‘Let’s throw this hand grenade of a black/white issue. Let’s accuse the new government, the previous Correctional Services Minister, let’s accuse them of blatantly favouring Aboriginal people over whites and Asians’. These were the lines - very carefully crafted lines to take the CLP back to its perceived heartland and to win back the northern suburbs. ‘Let’s not ask a single question on the biggest single issue that is being debated in the Northern Territory at the moment’ - which is the state of the economy. I stand here and accept that, we are having a really tough time. ‘But let’s not ask a single question on that because we know that in terms of winning back the northern suburbs we have to go back to basics, and let’s use this divide and rule’.
So heaven help the opposition coming in here tomorrow crying crocodile tears on the economy, which they will. They will come in here tomorrow, I bet the first questions will be on the Yellow Pages survey. Well, you missed your opportunity today. You cannot come in here tomorrow with crocodile tears about the economy when the old race card, which is the legacy of 26 years of CLP government, was played so blatantly in here today. We will wait and see how the strategy pans out for the rest of the sittings.
We are looking at the economic issues, we are looking at the issues in oil and gas. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Drysdale were talking about what we did to facilitate negotiations between Timor and Phillips. We are not going to go line by line through that, we don’t have to. The fact is that between Phillips and Timor and the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth government - but particularly the Northern Territory government - there is now an agreement between Phillips and East Timor. That was, in large part, assisted by the Northern Territory government working with all parties, not on the front pages of the NT News, not on the TV screens on Channel 8 at night, but being a good government working behind the scenes.
If we look at the issue of business confidence for a moment, and the issues surrounding this, the absolute irresponsible media hype created by the Leader of the Opposition in the last 12 months, was the absolute certainty that we were going to get gas onshore - the absolute certainty that we had signed up Methanex and an LNG plant for Phillips - the absolute certainty that all of these things were going to happen. Totally irresponsible, because not a single contract was signed anywhere. Difficulties were being raised with the government all the time but no, ‘It suited our political strategy to get out there. Let’s hype this up, let’s commit Territorians and business people in the Territory to work up business plans based on the reality, the certainty that this is going to occur’. And then, when Phillips made that announcement in August in terms of an indefinite deferral of the pipeline - and certainly with many business people I have spoken to - confidence just went through the floor, because they had been sold the certainty that this was going to happen outside of all of the information that was coming to government at the time that this was high-risk strategy, there were many complex issues that still needed to be resolved, and there was absolutely no certainty.
There was a lot of goodwill, I will grant that, and a lot of people working together, but there was no certainty. But that never came out in terms of the media statements of the former Chief Minister and now Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Dunham: You have it in your budget papers. It is in your budget papers.
Mr HENDERSON: And I will pick up - and it will be interesting to get the Hansard from the member for Drysdale who said that the CLP hand was still on the tiller, guiding the great ship of state, and somehow the Opposition Leader had brokered this meeting today between the Prime Minister and the CEOs of Phillips, Shell and Woodside Petroleum. Well, that is an absolute blatant falsehood, an absolute total lie and verballing of the Prime Minister’s office. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Leader of the Opposition. This meeting has been arranged for quite some time now …
Mr Dunham: When he was Chief Minister, you goose.
Mr HENDERSON: No, this meeting was not brokered six months ago when he was Chief Minister. You really should not intrude in areas of debate that you know nothing about. This meeting has come about - and I am not going to talk about it here - but it had absolutely nothing to do with the Opposition Leader in terms of his meeting with Macfarlane and Downer - and it will be interesting to see the reasons for the travel down there. I think it coincided with the first sitting day of the new federal parliament, with Howard, with all of his absolute distortions and the Prime Minister coming out now winning the federal election on absolute falsehoods. He did not have too many friends left to invite to his opening party …
Mr DUNHAM: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The reflections on people in other Houses also offends the standing orders of this House.
Madam SPEAKER: I am not quite sure whether the speaker actually offended the Prime Minister.
Mr DUNHAM: I think distortion might be one?
Mr Reed: In relation to referring to the Prime Minister as Howard, rather than the Prime Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Did he? Is that what you are referring to? Well yes, the minister does know that you should not refer to people that way.
Mr HENDERSON: I stand pulled up, Madam Speaker, and I did correct myself and referred to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister. But he did not have too many friends left in terms of conservative leaders around Australia to come to his celebratory party. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition was invited and, whilst he was down there, he stitched up a couple of meetings without even bothering to get a briefing from my department, which he worked with for so many years and knows how dedicated those officers are, what a wealth of information they have in regard to these very complex negotiations and actually seeking a briefing to avail himself of the up-to-date information before going into those meetings with Macfarlane and Downer. So, to come in here and say that the Leader of the Opposition is somehow still steering this, beggars belief.
In terms of the issue of whether we are going to get gas to shore out of Sunrise, well this government has not given up. Yes, the going is tough and we have not given up. We are still advancing the national interest argument and we have more bullets to fire in that, but I do note, that the Leader of the Opposition in previous debate in this House, back in the last sittings, has basically given up and would have rolled over. Well, we are going to continue to fight in the interests of this community and in the interest of Australia.
The Leader of the Opposition was talking about the railway and how we are claiming credit for this. The Chief Minister has consistently said that this was not a CLP project, it was a Territory project and from day one the railway, from day one had totally unqualified support from us in opposition. It was support that was never acknowledged, and the Leader of the Opposition stands here and says that we had run away, that we were not going to approve any additional money, and there was no more money to be put on the table. Well again, an absolute blatant falsehood. I remember very clearly - very clearly - the bill that was brought into this House late one night, probably back in June/July last year and it was a ‘whatever it takes’ bill. It was a blank cheque bill which basically gave the government of the day, the Opposition Leader, the then Chief Minister, the capacity via that legislation to kick in whatever money was required to get the railway over the line, and we signed up to it. I remember the then Leader of the Opposition coming up over here and saying to the then Chief Minister of the day: ‘We are going to take you on your word on this, that if you do have to use this trigger, then you have to bring it back into the parliament’. But it was an unprecedented piece of legislation in terms of the ‘whatever it takes’ bill. We then had after that, and continue today in this House, this furphy that we, in opposition, did not support any additional money for the railway. History will certainly write that.
I challenge the Leader of the Opposition and any member of this House, to provide evidence to this parliament, on any bill that went through this House, in relation to the railway over all of those years, that we in opposition did not support it and did not support fulsomely. There is not one. So again, this wonderful legacy, this picture that the CLP try to present that everything that is good in the Territory is due to the CLP and their great stewardship of the ship of state for 26 years, and everything that is bad, including the current fiscal position of government, the health outcomes for Territorians, the education outcomes for Territorians, well that had nothing to do with them, that was all somebody else’s fault. Well, that absolutely does not wash. We will be judged at the end of four years, in terms of our progress in regard to the election commitments we made, the Chief Minister’s statement here tonight, the state of the budget, the state of the economy, and we will stand and we will be judged in four years time, and I look forward to that particular contest.
For members opposite to have the gall to come in here and, basically, make the assertions that they left the good ship, the Northern Territory, in a wonderful position after 26 years absolutely beggars belief. It attempts to rewrite history that does not stand up and members of this House have absolute total support in terms of the vision that the Chief Minister has put up this afternoon in this statement and we will be judged against that in four years time.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I was rather surprised by the revelation, and by his own admission, at the commencement of his speech that the Minister for Business, Industry, and Resource Development was not going to speak in this debate, but he had been attracted to do so, of course, by the comments from members on this side of the House. It is surprising, because for the Chief Minister to make a major statement in what she claims is the way ahead for the Territory and the economy, in particular, and to not have that supported by contributions by not only the lead ministers but all ministers, is, I dare say, unprecedented in this House. It is appropriate on such occasions for other ministers to inform the House, and in turn Territorians, as to the scope of overall government activity in relation to ‘the way ahead’. That is underlined by comments reported, or attributed to the Chief Minister in today’s paper, and I quote from that:
- What the government’s outlining over the next two weeks, are our plans and priorities for 2002.
This is not a wish list.
And then, of course today, we have the lead statement in relation to that from the Chief Minister. She goes on to say:
- Ms Martin said she expected the unemployment rate to fall over the next few months as a result
of cyclical factors within the Territory economy.
That is an astounding statement from a Chief Minister and Treasurer. She does not expect the unemployment rate to fall because of the actions of her government and the encouragement that that is going to give to the private sector, but she hopes, in her deepest wishes and dreams, that cyclical events, that is, her ‘Let’s keep away from it in terms of the responsibility of government. Let’s keep away from it because we don’t know what to do, but hopefully through some magical occurrence something out there will make the unemployment rate drop’. That coming on top of revelations today from the Yellow Pages that business confidence in the Northern Territory government is at an all time low, and has plunged from 41% last August down to 5% in November last year and now negative 12%. That is an alarming fact and it will have the alarm bells ringing right across the business sector of the Northern Territory. That lack of confidence in the government is going to be further exacerbated by the fact that the hope that the business community saw in today’s NT News article on page 6, about the Chief Minister going to show the way ahead for the next year, has been dashed.
Territorians are going to be very disappointed tomorrow when they find that the Chief Minister has again said that all the things that are going to happen are, in fact, already happening. The alarming part of that is, is that once those projects come to an end there is nothing else in the pipeline. We have heard nothing from the Chief Minister today to tell us what is going to happen after the convention centre is built in Alice Springs. Madam Speaker, you would have been interested to hear today in the Chief Minister’s statement, I dare say, that once the construction of the convention centre is finished in Alice Springs, what activity is going to be generated by this government to keep the construction industry in an active position in Alice Springs. You have heard nothing today in relation to that.
The Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment, similarly a CLP initiative. When it comes to an end what is going to keep the construction industry on the move in Alice Springs? In terms of medical services when are the boards going to be taken off the windows of the private hospital in Alice Springs so that the people of Alice Springs might have a private hospital service, one that was promised by the CLP government? The facility was put in place, and the Labor government put boards over the windows.
What is going to happen with the East Arm port development? This government is applauding the fact that the East Arm Port development is proceeding. Of course it was a tender that was called, I think, by this government, and the Labor government has deferred for 12 months further works on the port.
The Royal Darwin Hospital development on the way, the redevelopment there initiated by the CLP government and nothing to take its place when it is finished in terms of initiatives from this Labor government. And they have the temerity to put up as an initiative a $6m project which is being funded by the Commonwealth to make it look good for the people of Alice Springs.
Underpinning all of that, of course, we have just heard the news from the minister for industries and business, something that we all know, that the Territory receives some 80% of its funding from the Commonwealth. It is a fact. What the minister did not go on to say, of course, was that all states receive rather large proportions of their funding from the Commonwealth. New South Wales, for example, as large as it is, with the taxing capacity and the fundraising capacity it has, receives something in the order of 40% of its funding from the Commonwealth. We should not be ashamed …
Mr Henderson: Not 80%.
Mr REED: I will pick up the interjection. The minister interjects: ‘Not 80%’. Well, I ask the minister what alternative he sees for Territorians to collect further funding from Territorians and less from the Commonwealth? What is wrong under the Federation of Australian States, of which now, financially, the territories are a part - what is wrong with a jurisdiction of low population, responsible for a large geographic area of 1.3m km receiving funding to ensure that- and this is the basis of the founding fathers of our Federation - the funding structure that was put in place, that horizontal fiscal equalisation ensures that we receive funding to be able to provide to the citizens of the Northern Territory services of a like nature to those that are provided elsewhere in Australia in the states, so that no Australian is overly disadvantaged in terms of the services they receive.
If the honourable minister is telling us that he wants to see a reduction in Commonwealth funding, that is something that will get the Territory concerned because they have already hit Territorians with over $100 a year in increased registration and associated costs for their vehicles and they do not buy this nonsense of black holes. Forget it. You are digging yourself into a black hole by continuing to push the story. People see through this mythical black hole of $107m. If they had a $107m problem, why are they raising $160m in the overall funding packages that they have put together? The reason - and Territorians can see through it - is so that they can pay for their election promises. They will have lean times for the first couple of years of this parliamentary term and then they will hope to recover public and voter confidence through a big spending program in the last couple of years. If you don’t think Territorians can see through that, you are more nave than I thought you were.
In terms of Commonwealth funding, there is no need for Territorians to be ashamed of the level of Commonwealth funding that we have received. We are entitled to receive it under the Commonwealth fiscal arrangements and in that regard, that the minister should stand up here and be critical of the fact that we do, simply demonstrates that he has no understanding at all as to what the fiscal arrangements in this country are and the disbursement of Commonwealth fundings to the states and territories and how it is done.
The other point that confirms that this a hollow statement, apart from the fact that it has nothing in it, is that there has been no contribution from other ministers; no other government members are contributing to the debate, or they have said they won’t. The Deputy Chief Minister in his contribution had so little to say in terms of what he could offer the business community, what he could offer in terms of his portfolios as regards improved services for the Territory, that he focussed purely on what he perceived to be the position of the opposition. If that is not a clear demonstration of a Deputy Chief Minister not knowing what is going on in his government and, moreover, bereft of ideas in relation to his own portfolio - and bear in mind he is the minister for education and training and employment, and we have unemployment levels now at over 8% and he did not contribute one iota to this debate in terms of how that serious set of circumstances is going to be addressed. Of course, as I have already said, in the paper today the Chief Minister is reported as saying she hopes cyclical events will fix the unemployment problem. Well, there is a Chief Minister and Treasurer in deep trouble. If this statement today has not – and it has not - addressed in any way the unemployment issues, then she is in deep trouble, and we will see that evolve over the coming months.
Let us look just at a couple of other issues in terms of how the several million dollars, and I forget the amount - $6m, was it? $4.7m, was it, that they put into capital works and repairs and maintenance? I was speaking to a contractor last week, getting around talking to business people – it is a pity the government isn’t doing it. His contract activity in terms of the work he has to do for the government is less than half of what he was doing this time last year. He is employing fewer than half of the people that he employed last year and there is no prospect of his amount of Northern Territory government work increasing. No signs on the horizon whatsoever.
Mr Henderson: $4.5m extra today.
Mr REED: Good. I am pleased you confirmed the figure. $4.5m. So let’s put that in context. This one contractor, and I can refer also to a number of others, this one contractor is down something in the order of $0.5m on the work he was doing for the Northern Territory government last year. So, the $4.5m that the honourable member refers to might assist nine like contractors. It might, if of course it was only directed to them, but, of course, it is going to be directed across the board, It might help nine contractors get back to somewhere in the order of the level of activity that they were undertaking this time last year under a CLP government. And so, in accordance with that, $4.5m is nothing to be proud of. I mean, they are talking about black holes, and the first thing they did was borrow $100m. I mean, where is the logic in this? Where is the logic in the issues they are pursuing in terms of trying to blame everyone else?
The great Australian vernacular in terms of people who live off others, people who take credit for the work that others have done, people who appear in the shadow of achievers and say: ‘I’m going to take credit for that’, is a bludger, and that is the way that Territorians are starting to look at this government. They are starting to look at this government as a mob of bludgers because they are taking credit for work and initiatives that others have done. It is not the Australian way. The black hole, the criticism, the ‘Oh we should do this and we should do that but we can’t because of what the CLP did’ - they have been now in government for over six months. It is past the time, and every Territorian you talk to will tell you it is past the time, for excuses. They now have three-and-a-half years of a parliamentary term left. They now have to start making decisions. They have to be innovative, they have to be proactive, and they have to start generating confidence across the community in terms of both the private sector activity and the services that are provided.
I want to touch now on a little of the services that are provided, because there are becoming fewer and fewer of them as every agency of the public service, becomes more demoralised. No longer do you hear public servants talking about doing that extra yard. Getting in a little bit early, staying a little bit late and making that extra commitment because it was appreciated and the effort was worth it and you could achieve something. Territory public servants are now talking about the fact that they have to write a note to get access to use a vehicle to fulfil the duties for which they are employed. And in cases where vehicles are shared between a number of field workers, the vehicle can be used for one field worker to undertake their duties for a few days or a week. Whilst the other two or three field workers who formerly had direct access to a car are waiting to get their note answered about when they will have access to a car to do some field work in remote areas, they are sitting in their offices doing nothing because their work is vehicle-based. And that has …
A member: What’s their names, where are they?
Mr REED: What’s their names, where are they? How could I crucify the public servants? Let us get at them. I tell you what, I can say this: I won’t be disclosing their positions or their names but I will be giving a copy of the honourable member’s comments to them, because that will only further exacerbate the situation and it will very, very clearly demonstrate to those demoralised public servants that the attitude of government members towards the public service is at a critical stage in terms of support and appreciation for the services that they provide, and with no realisation as to the impact that they are having. The interjection that we just heard from the member clearly demonstrates that, and it is a very sad reflection on this government. I can say now, that after this government passes, it is going to take many, many years to get the public service back to the standards that existed before this government rifled it, before this government reduced the public service by however many that ends up being, and it is going to be over a thousand. Even the unions recognise that. And before they are able to achieve the access to resources that they formerly had so that they can provide the services to Territorians which Territorians have been accustomed to.
Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that you have probably experienced similar circumstances in relation to public servants. It is not just a Top End situation. Public servants right across the Northern Territory have experienced the same cutbacks. They are no longer able to provide the services that they had. Look at an example - and there are many of them that just spring to mind - the property owner who applied for the chemical subsidy to spray weeds on a property. A very important issue. Weeds are a serious impost on the landscape and productivity of the land and this person was told by the department: ‘Sorry, we are out of funds. We might be able to give you some money next year, but those programs have all been put on hold’. Not even halfway - this was not even halfway through the financial year. So, the weed subsidy, assistance to pastoralists, every area and activity of government has been cut and the demoralisation of agency staff is so extensive it is going to take a decade to recover from it. And we have not heard anything today in this statement in relation to giving hope to the public sector or hope to the private sector, and that is going to further exacerbate the problem. I don’t think we have seen the bottom of the unpopularity of this government in terms of the Yellow Pages Survey.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Health Service Actions for 2002
Health Service Actions for 2002
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to report on Health and Community Services today, because these services are among the most visible ways in which the government’s commitment to all Territorians is made plain. After six months in office it is also an opportune time to reflect on what we have encountered and what we intend to achieve over the next 12 months.
Territorians have entrusted government with their hopes and their aspirations for a better community; a community which has equality of opportunity and equality of participation, a community which provides equal opportunity for all Territorians to maximise their health, wellbeing and overall quality of life. We in the Labor government have a strong commitment to improve health infrastructure through our hospitals and health centres, to making the focus on prevention a reality, to supporting individuals and families, and providing better community services around the Territory. This House knows that our population, size and structure and the wide geographical dispersion of our people presents us with unique challenges. Compounding this is the severe budget difficulties that we inherited on coming into government.
It is worth reiterating the budget position, if only for the sake of members opposite, who seem to think that we are rolling in untold wealth and thus can fund every organisation who makes a claim for additional money. The November mini-budget identified an increase to the Health and Community Services budget allocation of $34.2m since the May 2001 budget, yet only $17.3m of this was for ongoing items. The rest was to meet one-off expenses, in the large part comprising known liabilities that had not been allocated for. Less than $1m is left to us this financial year from the $34.2m after paying off the debts of the previous government and meeting commitments. The challenge for us is to ensure that money is well targeted and prioritised so that Territorians are getting the best value for their Health and Community Services dollars.
This government believes strongly that good health and community care is essential for a well functioning Territory. That is why it has remained a strong priority for our government programs in spite of severe budget constraints. Our broad vision of what we want for the Territory must include:
- improved hospital services;
attractive conditions for medical, nursing and allied health professionals;
best practice options for regional care;
more opportunities and services for our young people;
more comprehensive responses for all the people impacted by alcohol and other drug use;
a robust community services sector; and
best efforts to turn around the worsening case of indigenous health.
Finding resources is one thing and not something this government takes lightly. But since assuming office it has also become clear to me that we have been left with a plethora of related problems to sort. The all important non-government sector, for instance, is facing significant challenges due to a series of historically unrealistic funding decisions and unwise one-off rescue packages, which have encouraged fragmentations, inefficiencies and dependencies where we need robustness and viability.
The challenge I face as Health and Community Services Minister, the challenge that keeps me occupied on a daily basis, is one of moving the entire portfolio out of crisis management and into long term planning, out of expediency and into strategic decision making. For each of the areas I will touch upon, the theme of effective stewardship of our available systems and resources is paramount. What I have to say today describes our first steps in creating the changes necessary to position the network of parties responsible for Health and Community Services to effectively make their best contribution. I stress these are first steps because we will be embarking on this change process in a considered and measured way. We are not rushing into quick fixes to create the superficial look of action, or to conjure miracles to appease the media. Instead, we are putting in the hard yards to build a more sustainable health and community services sector as a whole. This will take time, effort and, I stress again, responsible stewardship to achieve.
Turning now to our hospitals. We are after improvements in patient care; standardisation of best practice/policies/procedures; reduction of waste and duplication; a clear statement of the role and range of services for each hospital; and streamlined administration and reduction of overheads. The department’s hospital improvement project will be the vehicle for action. This takes in the entire public hospital network, and within that again, there are areas in urgent need of steady management and reform.
The problems we have encountered with the Alice Springs Hospital are nothing short of alarming. A critical nursing shortage, to all intents and purposes ignored by the previous government, has cascaded into a series of associated problems throughout the hospital, despite the best efforts of staff. Only very limited elective surgery has been available to central Australian residents for some time now, for without trained theatre nurses, there are longer waiting lists, less turnaround in bed stays, intensive care unit runs into difficulty, surgeons reconsider their options about working in such a short-handed environment, the emergency department strains at the pressure, and patients are forced to wait hours for beds.
Rather than investing in the overall strategic reforms and change management processes necessary to restore the Alice Springs Hospital to a more functional footing, the previous government focussed its efforts almost exclusively on capital redevelopment. I am not belittling the importance of these upgrades – we have upheld these commitments for good reasons. But I am signalling that the real work of attending to the actual operational environment and to bringing staff along, was neglected. This government has gone on the record about its commitment to rebuilding the community’s confidence in the public hospital system. In close consultation with staff and unions, we are giving Alice Springs Hospital the clear direction it needs to address its many challenges. We are putting in the planning and management processes to restore staff morale; we are attending to safety, quality and clinical risk issues; we are introducing operational efficiencies; and we are exploring opportunities for step-down, hostel and other forms of accommodation to facilitate discharge planning and post-discharge care. I will be reporting on this initiative to the House in greater detail this sittings, but for now, I am very pleased to report that our initiatives are already having effect. As I speak, elective surgery is back on the increase with the opening of two new theatres in the Alice Springs Hospital - a great turn around and a real testimony to the hard work of staff involved in the reform process.
The national shortage of nurses is a well-known problem. It goes beyond Alice Springs Hospital to be a problem throughout the Territory. One of our most important commitments as the new government will be to increase the number of hospital nurses by 75 over the next four years. To attract and maintain these hard-working and crucial members of our health teams in the Territory, a new marketing campaign and improved nurse career structures are already being developed.
We also need to attend to the very real problem of violence against nurses. This is a complex issue for which there is no quick fix. But again, with leadership, real improvements can be made. As frontline staff, community and even hospital nurses are often exposed to harrowing situations because they are committed to solving the underlying problems of the symptoms they deal with in a clinical setting. We ask them to do this. We ask them to see beyond the wound, the disease, to take in the whole person, their history, their wider social, political and cultural circumstances. This is what holistic primary health care is based on. But we cannot ask them to put themselves in physical danger in order to pursue their professional duties. Again, I will speak to the detail of our aggression response strategy this sittings, but for now, let me simply say this: violence against nurses is unacceptable, and we are working hard to immediately improve the occupational health and safety conditions of our frontline staff. Community-based staff cannot be expected to develop positive community relations in situations of crisis and stretch.
Nor can we afford to treat the serious issue of aggression in isolation from its links with other problems. Dependence, and a lack of self-determination, are conditions that encourage hopelessness, depression, violence and a range of health compromising behaviours that increase social dysfunction, illness and premature death. Some examples of these behaviours are abuse of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs, drunken driving, sexual risk taking, poor nutrition and physical inactivity. A whole-of-government response to family violence is being developed, and we are also assessing the extent of the under-resourcing of remote area primary health care in its entirety.
To improve regional access to aged care and other primary health care services, we are pursuing opportunities to establish multi-purpose services in both Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek in collaboration with the Commonwealth. The multi-purpose services model allows funds to be pooled from various sources into one flexible, integrated and streamlined service. This is an exciting development, which I look forward to reporting to the House as it progresses.
We are now also signatories to the Primary Health Care Access Program, which sees the Commonwealth accepting greater responsibility for funding the shortfall associated with the inaccessibility of the Medicare system to indigenous Territorians. This will result in the development of five zones in central Australia; and two in the Top End, in Borroloola and Darwin this year, with others to follow soon afterwards.
I give full credit to my predecessor for authorising the development of this important partnership approach to the promotion of community control and responsibility for health services management and delivery. Once again, however, I must flag the need to also provide a deliberate change management strategy as an equally serious government responsibility.
The experience at both the Tiwi and Katherine West Health Boards has been that they quickly move into being full service providers in their own right. This has the advantage or bringing services and clients into a more direct relationship with each other. Communities will employ their own health personnel, determine their own priorities and decide the best and most appropriate methods for delivering their own services. This has significant implications for how the Department of Health and Community Services can best support local control of health services. It is critical that the roll-out of zones is accompanied by enhanced professional support for service providers, and strong regional program management structures.
The regional service realignment project aims to deliver precisely this support, and to oversee the transition period as the zones begin to assume greater responsibility for service delivery. This tends to be unsung work, which is why I want to draw attention to it. When change processes are left to their own devices, the potential for unexpected financial liabilities, or alienation of personnel is exacerbated. I have seen too much of this in the health and community services sector to date, and I am determined that major projects will be carefully and diligently managed under this government. The issue at stake here can be simply put. It is about doing business in a smarter way, which is why - to take another example - I have asked for a complete appraisal of renal service requirements throughout the Territory.
The increasing mortality from renal disease does not adequately indicate the extent and rapid increase of this problem. With the provision of renal dialysis services to Aboriginal residents of remote communities from the mid-1980s, the number of clients on renal dialysis has risen dramatically, thus preventing most of the deaths that would otherwise have occurred over the past ten years. And as services become more accessible, diagnosis and treatment demands also escalate. In other words, the demand is going to grow before a drop-off is seen.
As a first step, this government’s commitment to providing a local haemodialysis service to Tennant Creek residents is being fulfilled, but a planned approach to renal service delivery is urgently required. The department is currently undertaking a mapping exercise to identify where areas of demand are likely to next emerge, and what the service implications of that demand might be. Ideally, we would like to continue the move to have renal services delivered close to where people live, to eliminate some of the more traumatic aspects of living with renal problems, that of isolation and loneliness. But for this to happen, we also need to assess the viability of different locations in terms of their infrastructure and amenity, level of social cohesion and community support structures. It takes planning, and good planning takes time, but the more relevant issue is the need to base our spending decisions on sound research.
An integral part of our approach to indigenous health, however, will be to fully commit to the whole-of-government, whole-of-community partnerships between government agencies and indigenous health services in ways that make collaboration more than just words. For example, the Collins report signalled the critical relationship between health and education. Despite the enthusiasm of many of our public servants to engage with such important reforms, the previous government allowed inter-agency cooperation to wither on the vine. I refuse to pay such lip service to indigenous health issues. In conjunction with my colleagues, the minister for education and the Minister for Community Development, I will be promoting constructive and creative approaches on an inter-agency basis, in tackling what is a growing crisis in indigenous health. These inter-agency cooperative arrangements will be committed to working with relevant indigenous service delivery organisations locally, regionally and across the Territory with bodies such as the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance. I have more to say about indigenous health which I believe is of such critical importance it deserves separate consideration in a statement to this House, something I will flag now for the next sittings.
I have stressed the responsibility of my approach to the Health and Community Services sector. My focus, and I do not apologise for how dry it might sound, is on identifying and implementing smarter, more innovative and more cost effective ways of doing things. Talking of doing things that make good sense, it astounds me that young people do not feature as a distinct policy focus in their own right, be it in relation to alcohol and other drugs, mental health, family and children’s services or even sexual health. This is a matter I feel very strongly about. These young people are our future and all the indicators point to the importance of this age group for directing adults towards healthful, productive lives.
Early childhood, infancy and even pre-birth maternal and child health have long been acknowledged as important precursors to adult health. Government’s commitment to improving the physical health of children and young adults is well documented. Some of our more important primary health care initiatives in this area are $2.2m for 2002-03 for a major increase in specialist child health personnel for remote areas; managing child health monitoring; better school health programs; and better nutrition. But older childhood and young adulthood are also critical periods in terms of development. It is becoming ever more obvious, that childhood and adolescence are not necessarily the low health risk periods they were once thought to be. It is also clear that the early years are critical periods for the adoption of behaviours with potential for significant long term harm and disability.
Although the importance of good physical health in children has been recognised for some time, there has not been sufficient attention given to the critical importance of their mental health and their social wellbeing. Mental health problems in childhood and adolescence if not resolved can have far reaching and enduring consequences for young people and their future, and for the community at large. Good mental health is fundamental for physical health, quality of life and economic productivity. Childhood and adolescent years offer the best opportunities for illness prevention and the building of resilient, long lasting mental health.
Members of this Assembly will be disturbed to know that 14% of children and young people in Australia, over half a million in total, have mental health problems that are comparable in severity with problems seen in children actually attending a mental health clinic. Even mild mental health problems are still likely to result in children and young people feeling very stressed, in poor physical health, performing below grade level, abusing alcohol and drugs, and thinking about and sadly often executing self harming actions.
Young people have more traditionally been viewed as healthy and robust, as generally immune to many of the problems that affect others. This seems to have been the major reason for the relative neglect of adolescent health in the past. It was also thought that health comprising behaviours became established and matured in the early 20s, certainly not in the teens and late childhood. This view, however, is inconsistent with the recent evidence which suggests that it is during childhood and the teens that many health compromising behaviours become established; behaviours such as smoking, poor diet, obesity, physical inactivity, high injury risk activity, drug and alcohol abuse.
Unfortunately, there are more immediate threats to children and young adults than the precursors to chronic diseases. Accidental injury, for example, one of the six national health priority areas, disproportionately affects young people. It is the leading cause of death in 12 to 24 year old Australians. The prevalence of injuries in young people is higher than for any other age group and although motor vehicle deaths have dropped substantially in the past two decades, death as a result of motor vehicle and transport accidents still remain overwhelmingly the most common cause of accidental death for young people.
Then there is the issue of youth suicide. The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows an increase in youth suicide for the Northern Territory from two deaths in 1994 to 12 deaths in 1999. Suicide is a complex and emotive issue that intersects a number of problems and concerns across society including mental health problems, alcohol and other drug misuse, family issues and social isolation. Research shows that by improving young peoples resiliency, self esteem, their problem solving and coping skills, and creating a sense of belonging to family, school and the community, we can reduce the incidence of youth suicide and other health compromising behaviours.
To repeat, Madam Speaker, there is strong epidemiological rationale for the ‘youth development’ approach my department is now adopting. Under this government, all future policy and program development for community capacity building will have to ensure that youth are an integral consideration.
A particular challenge faced by families and young people today, and no doubt well into the future, is the challenge of drug and alcohol abuse. This government has thus also begun the work of tackling the problems associated with substance abuse and illicit drug use in the Territory. Traditionally, most treatment and prevention efforts have focussed their attention on the users/abusers and their behaviour. Like the absent focus on youth, support for families has been limited and is generally provided at the specialist end of the treatment continuum. This has left a gap in services for family members, particularly at the primary health care level where contact with family members should be greatest. It is clear, that the Territory has a particular problem in this area. It is also clear that children and other family members suffer considerably as a result of the drinker or abuser’s behaviour and that they are at the higher risk of engaging in harmful drinking and drug abuse themselves.
The Family Coping Strategy, being developed by the department’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Program is well progressed and holds considerable promise in this area. The Ministerial Taskforce on Illicit Drugs is also now underway with regional consultative forums soon to take place to help devise a comprehensive strategy to battle the real problems caused by amphetamines, morphine and other illicit drugs. The support needs of the families of individuals using drugs are also a priority for the taskforce. Substance misuse is a matter that requires the dedicated attention of all members of parliament and the bipartisan approach of the select committee can only be applauded. But in the meantime for those indigenous communities reporting significant alcohol and cannabis related harm and endemic sniffing problems, we need to support local solutions now. I have already held discussions with the Commonwealth Minister for Health, the Hon Kay Patterson, to emphasise a need to collaborate on this issue as a matter of urgency.
After full consultation with industry and interested community members, we will look at passing through parliament tobacco legislation which addresses such issues as smoking in enclosed places, the sale of tobacco products to minors, and point of sale advertising, again ensuring safer environments and greater protection of our young people.
Among other issues of major importance, I should also like to briefly mention improved services for people with disabilities and their families and carers. Government is also following through on its commitment to people with disabilities, their families and carers by:
- consulting extensively and implementing an improved framework for the allocation of
funding for unmet needs;
progressing joint planning between the Departments of Housing and Health and Community
Services for Territorians with those whose accommodation needs are complex and difficult
to meet;
increasing options for early childhood support and also increasing options for young adults
with high support needs who have completed formal schooling;
providing additional respite care services; and
actively working to improve positive outcomes for Territorians through the upcoming negotiations
on the Commonwealth-State Disability Services Agreement.
This is an important initiative and I look forward to a focussed discussion with the sector on how we can best support the different interested parties to scale up their collective ability to drive efficiencies. Together with government, they have difficult decisions to make about priorities and future survival strategies. The forums will help make available the knowledge, the information and the expertise necessary to help all players make the right decisions.
Government plays an important role in supporting and facilitating such problem solving processes. Additional resources are vital but if they are to be used effectively, we must catalyze new partnerships that harness the energy and creativity of the health and community services sector in the search for solutions.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement and that the hard work and dedication of people involved in getting the best of our health and community services sector is acknowledged.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the minister for the briefing that the member for Drysdale and myself availed ourselves of some weeks ago regarding issues in the Palmerston and rural areas. That is one of the issues I would like to speak on tonight, because it is one of the issues I see missing from the statement. What is going to happen for people in the rural area and Palmerston area? Being a member from the rural area, I think people in the rural area are missing out. Tomorrow, I present nearly 4000 signatures of rural people who want some form of 24-hour emergency facility to service their region. It is important to rural people and I would like to put forward a response that I hope the minister will take it on and that perhaps the government will reconsider its decision about the 24-hour clinic closure.
What I thought I would do is give a little history of what has happened in the last few years regarding the development of the Palmerston Health Precinct. The history of the Palmerston Health Precinct is a mixture of good intentions, departmental opposition, public misconception and sometimes just plain politics.
On 10 August 1999, in reply to a question, Mr Dunham said the following - and I am quoting from page 700, Questions, in the Hansard:
- I have spoken to doctors in the area, to the St John Ambulance Service, to specialists and to current owners
of the Darwin Private Hospital, Healthscope. They are enthused by this proposal, and all confident that the
government can achieve its ambition to see medical specialist suites in there, a pharmacy, a radiology
department, allied health services, an ambulance service, a community care centre, which is currently in
Palmerston and which we intend to move, a 24 hour GP service …
Further on he says:
- We hope to provide services for people in Palmerston that would obviate the necessity for them to come
to Royal Darwin Hospital. We are hoping that in providing these services we can reduce the burden on
Royal Darwin Hospital.
On 21 February 2001, the then minister, Mr Dunham said, I quote from page 1297, Questions, of Hansard:
- In the Palmerston Health Precinct, for instance, we will have extended hours GPs so that people in Palmerston
who have a concern about their child perhaps having to see a doctor, and who have had in the past to travel all
the way to RDH, can go to the health precinct at Palmerston and have that child attended to. So this is not just
one shot in the gun; this is making sure that the health system addresses the needs of Territorians right across.
I also note that during a debate on the same day, 21 February, the member for Wanguri moved that the Northern Territory parliament condemn successive CLP governments for consistently failing to adequately fund Northern Territory hospitals, facilities and services. Then again on the same day during the debate, the then minister for Health, Mr Dunham said, I quote page 7285 and 7286 of Hansard:
Now, let’s talk about the Palmerston Health Precinct.
And he goes on to say:
- When you travel through our southern cities, you see medical centres sprinkled through suburbia and I am very
confident this particular precinct will be more than just a medical centre. This will be a centre that will find many
private providers clamouring to have some sort of access to over the next two or three years, I am sure, because it
will afford them a great precinct in which to practice.
The member for Wanguri said on the next day at page 7345 of Hansard:
- Working through the paper, the minister starts off talking about the works that have commenced and been
completed at the Palmerston Health Precinct. We have to say up front that this is an election promise that
was promised in 1997 and is actually being delivered during the current term. Now, that’s a fairly rare
thing and we congratulate the government in achieving this. And we will go back and talk about other
election commitments in the hospital capital works area that have not been made during that term of
government. But this has been delivered, and it is good to see and I know the people of Palmerston
welcome that. And I also have to congratulate the contractors in bringing the project in so significantly
under budget. They have obviously done a very good job there and we congratulate them for it.
And he goes on:
- One of the major issues for Palmerston residents is obviously the lack of 24-hour emergency services and
the fact they have to travel all the way to Royal Darwin Hospital out of hours. We do have GP services
available in Palmerston to 10 pm on a daily basis. They are not at the clinic, they are at the GP rooms
elsewhere in Palmerston, but there is still no after hours facility in Palmerston. The precinct certainly has
the capacity to provide that, and, again, for members who are speaking later in this debate, what sort of
timeframe can Palmerston residents expect if that 24-hour after hours facility is going to be provided?
And again on Thursday, 5 July 2001, the minister for health, Mr Dunham, said in debate at page 8552 and 8553 of Hansard:
- Development of the Palmerston Health Precinct at a cost of under $7m will greatly improve the access to
health services for the residents of Palmerston and Litchfield. This development includes a community care
centre, family and specialist medical suites, 24-hour medical centre currently - seeing 70 to 75 patients per day …
- Health is a priority area for this government and the mini-budget delivers on our commitments. An
additional $34m has been provided to the Department of Health and Community Services.
So, why have I quoted from Hansard, the NT News and the mini-budget? Because it shows that both political parties are saying that Palmerston should have a 24-hour GP service or a 24-hour medical service. I think most people would agree, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned earlier, that a GP service from 10 pm to 8 am is probably not necessary. But, as is shown from the number of people who have signed the petitions, they believe some type of emergency facility should be in place. I believe that is what the then opposition, now government, also wanted. This is obvious from the debates in parliament last year. Both sides were happy that it should occur. And it may be because of this apparent consensus that public expectations were high. I think everyone believed there would be a 24- hour GP service or a 24-hour medical service and perhaps that was the wrong impression to give people.
So, if the government and the opposition supported a 24-hour clinic, the question is: was the Health department opposed to it? The present minister for health says the decision to close it was based on evidence gathered by the Department of Health and Community Services. They found that urgent and semi-urgent use of the 10 pm to 8 am service was minimal and not the best use of limited taxpayers’ funds. But according to a report in the NT News on 19 November 2001, a review on how many patients used the 24-hour service will not be made public. The only figures made public are in the minister’s press statement which said:
- Records of the trial showed that only 37 patients had legitimate reason to be seen between the hours of 10 pm
and 8 am with the overwhelming majority of patients being classed as able to see their doctor the following day.
Without the report, I am not able to verify what these figures mean. How many people turned up at the clinic who thought they had a serious problem, but after consultation were found not to be serious? It is important to realise that parents may believe there is something seriously wrong with their child, even if in fact if there is not, but how are they to know until they see someone? Were these particular cases quantified in the review? Does the cost quoted at $6000 per patient include those patients who believe they had a serious ailment? Are the figures made to look bad because they are, or because the department does not support the concept?
At a recent briefing with people from the department, various other reasons were given why it was not reasonable to have a 24-hour service at Palmerston. For example, if you went to Palmerston, you might have to wait in a queue and in that time you could have driven to RDH. No mention of what would have happened if there was a queue at RDH. Or that you would not expect this facility in a big city. You would have to drive at least 40 minutes to an emergency clinic in a big city.
Former health minister, Mr Dunham, said in parliament on 21 February 2001 in debate:
- When you travel through our southern cities you see medical centres sprinkled through suburbia . I’m very
confident this particular precinct will be more than just a medical centre.
But it sounds to me that what the then minister believed was not necessarily what the department supported.
There are some other matters which concern me. First, there is the announcement by the government that based on the secret review, the 24-hour facility will be closed. Surely, if the government knew that the closure of this clinic would cause anger among the residents of the rural area and Palmerston, it should have first tried to involve the clinic in discussions about the closure before it decided to close it. Community consultation was sadly lacking.
It also concerns me that the government has made a statement that it will now spend an extra $34m on health this year, whilst at the same time saying we have a black hole and cannot afford to waste money on a 24-hour facility. It seems this is going to be seen as discrimination towards people in the rural and Palmerston areas. Surely people at Humpty Doo are entitled to a fair share of the health budget?
The last matter of concern is that the minister has asked the Department of Health and Community Services to conduct a feasibility study to examine the primary health care clinic service needs in the Palmerston area, and I hope the rural area is included. This statement was made on 10 December last year. I have to ask the minister, has this review started, and is it a public review and not a secret one like the first one?
Nearly 4000 people from the rural area have said they want some form of 24-hour medical service in Palmerston. I would therefore ask the government to establish a working party, including politicians from the rural area and Palmerston, local government, health specialists and yourself, to see if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this issue. The working party could look at the feasibility of having some form of emergency clinic, perhaps it has been stated before, with a nurse or with a paramedic, attached to the 24-hour ambulance centre.
As well, I would ask the government to seriously consider speeding up the construction of the proposed Humpty Doo police, fire and emergency service station proposed in the budget to be started in the next financial year. It should be commenced at the beginning of the financial year, not at the end. This would not only give an important boost to the rural economy but allow an ambulance to be stationed in the rural area. That would at least go some way to alleviating the concerns of rural residents.
Decision-makers forget that in the rural area people do have to travel further distances than in the more built-up areas. When mum lives on a block in outer Humpty Doo, and dad is working out on the mines or on an oil rig and one of the kids gets an asthma attack, or pop has a bit of a pain in the chest, it is nice to know there is help within a reasonable distance. For these people, I do not believe travelling to RDH at 3 am is reasonable. I would therefore ask the government to take on board some of these suggestions and see if we can find a sensible solution and outcome for the people of the rural and Palmerston areas.
The second issue that concerns me is regarding Aboriginal health. Minister, in your speech you spoke about the importance of Aboriginal health and about the importance of finding ways of treating people who have alcohol and drug-related problems. On this morning’s news, I heard that there was a possibility that the Five Mile Rehab Centre at Daly River, run by the Alcohol Education and Awareness Institute, is in danger of being closed down. I gather from what I have been told, that the board – that is the board of the Alcohol Education and Awareness Institute - was told by Health and Community Services that there would be no funding for hostels such as theirs after 30 June this year.
This centre has a 99% success rate in treating alcohol and marijuana dependency. They take the whole family, have a school for the children, and offer counselling for children and spouses, teach children how to cope with drunken parents. When someone first comes in, they take them hunting with a spear in the bush, concentrating on sweating the alcohol out of them, and on traditional values. People sleep on mattresses on the floor, not beds, by preference. They can cook wallabies traditionally - lots of options. Strong emphasis is on cultural appropriateness and traditions. People come there from all over Australia, not just the Northern Territory. It has been running there for 20 years and is only closed for six weeks a year. They take an average of 22 adults and 18 children at one time. It is run by the Catholic Dioceses with an annual government grant of $146 000 per annum.
Minister, I would ask you to urgently look at the funding for this Alcohol Education Awareness Institute. As I said in my sorry debate, one thing I hope I can do as a member of parliament is work towards some solutions for the alcohol and drug problems that especially affect many of our indigenous communities. I have known this community for a long time. In fact, I used to work on the same place this place was built just before it was established. I do hope that you can see that it is a very important institute. It does a lot of very important work. It has saved a lot of families; I have met people who have been through this course. I would ask you to take it on as a matter of urgency to see that this institute continues to get the funding it deserves.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to recognise the tremendous efforts our Minister for Health and Community Services is undertaking daily to turn around 26 years of neglect and pilfering from the health budget, specifically in Commonwealth grants, by successive CLP governments. I believe this neglect has bordered on the criminal, with absolute disregard to the basic health needs of indigenous Territorians.
Mr DUNHAM: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The word ‘pilfering’ – it is actually a crime, and in reference to Commonwealth grants, it was a matter that was looked at by the Public Accounts Committee, and the findings on that would dispute what the member is saying, and I suggest she refrain from it.
Madam SPEAKER: I have to admit I did not hear what she said. Perhaps the member for Karama could rephrase what she just said - keeping that in mind - because I cannot rule on it because I did not hear.
Ms LAWRIE: Twenty six years of neglect and shifting of money in and out of health budgets, specifically not total allocation of Commonwealth grants as provided, by successive CLP governments. I believe this neglect has bordered on the criminal, with an absolute disregard to basic health needs of indigenous Territorians. The CLP has left the Territory with a legacy of spiralling health costs - substance abuse, chronic diseases and illnesses based on the lack of fundamental healthy lifestyles have come home to roost, and now our acute health care system is struggling under a burden of too great a demand.
It is interesting to note that members opposite choose to attack our government for taking a strong stance in trying to right a fundamental imbalance. These are the same people who fought against the introduction of an Aboriginal interpreter service, which was crucial in the day-to-day operations of health care providers.
Mr Dunham: We implemented it.
Ms LAWRIE: You fought against it. It was a rally of the health care workers and lawyers and public outcry that forced the government’s hand.
I know that doctors, nurses and allied health professionals rallied in unprecedented numbers outside parliament in yet another attempt to get the CLP to listen. Unfortunately, the CLP way of doing things was to ignore the problem, harass and intimidate any honest member of our society for highlighting the problem, and then blame everyone else for the problem. Good government is about identifying where problems exist, implementing sound strategies borne through community and specialist consultations to address and overcome such problems.
The political party now, fortunately, in opposition, has left the legacy of successive governments that chose to live in denial about the disastrous impact their negligence was having on people’s lives. How does that affect my Karama constituents, you may ask? I have people living now permanently in Territory Housing homes, separated from their communities, living out a miserable existence on dialysis. When their community-based relatives come into town to visit, they hang out in local parks because there is nowhere for them to live. This disturbs the neighbours and we end up with a burgeoning social problem.
The difference with our government is that we are taking a multi-faceted approach to resolving these problems. Our health minister, our community development minister, education minister, and our Chief Minister, are all working together to improve community life and health. The fruits of our labours won’t truly be known for some years. These are not quick-fix solutions for political expediency - that is the way of the past, not the future.
I note that the Minister for Health and Community Services has also touched on the issue of youth suicide in her address, and I commend the minister for giving this important issue due attention. Just some weeks ago in my electorate, a young man hung himself. He had reached that terrible depth of despair and took his own life. My prayers go to his family, whom I know my colleague, the member for Arafura, has been working closely with in this time of grief and need.
As a teenager in Darwin, I lost friends to youth suicide. One friend could no longer cope with the life that was shattered by Cyclone Tracy, with the death of his mother, and permanent injury to every member of his family. He had struggled for years with his grief and sense of loss, feeling different to people because, from a tender stage in his childhood, his family had been traumatised. Another friend took his own life after living between cultures and struggling to cling to a positive self-esteem after being abandoned as a child and rejected by his white relatives. He had won the Northern Territory Apprenticeship of the Year award, he was talented and great. Yet he reached a point of despair, dislocation from society, and loneliness. We lost a terrific and talented Territorian.
It is my fervent hope that the youth development approach being implemented by our minister will give our youth a greater sense of belonging, of worth and, in their darkest hours, knowledge that there is help available. I know my friends and constituents who work in the mental health sector - both government and non-government - are concerned about the need for greater resources. I am confident that our minister, in her negotiations with the Commonwealth, can deliver partnerships that will improve funding and services in mental health. Such partnerships are now already underway in the disability sector. The Commonwealth and Territory unmet needs funding is being distributed by the Department of Health and Community Services, in a far more equitable manner than previously, following community consultation forums in Darwin and Alice Springs late last year. As the minister has previously informed this Assembly, I hosted those forums on her behalf. Following the completion of the forums, and reports from the independent facilitators, I stepped back from any active role in disability. I am pleased to say that the feedback I have received from this sector that I know well, is that they feel there has been a much fairer distribution of unmet needs funding in the latest allocations round, and that the funds have gone to the key areas of need and priority. Sling whatever you wish, opposition, the truth and fact of the matter is that we are working with the community, working with carers, working with people with a disability, to deliver the services and options that have been too long overdue.
Finally, a sector of our society that, in the past, has been deemed insignificant and overlooked in terms of funding for crucial services is being listened to, consulted, and provided with what they have been asking for. All of this is making absolutely meaningful improvements to people’s lives. In time, with this positive and fresh approach, the sector will move out of crisis management and hopefully into life enjoyment.
Moving on from these successful forums, our minister is now supporting NTCOSS to host consultative forums in Darwin and Alice Springs. This is an important initiative. The Territory needs a coordinated approach to social services - a partnership of action between the government and non-government sectors. Under our Labor government, these foundation stones to a strong and cooperative future that provides meaningful improvements to our society, are finally being laid. Today’s health statement from Minister Aagaard is another indication that we are working hard in our government to breath new life into the Territory, one that will sustain a healthy society.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, we have had six months now of the new government and they are still moaning about the CLP. You have three-and-a-half years left and you had better be quick on fixing things up with all the grand plans you have espoused tonight - most without much substance - and all the high expectations you have. Quite frankly, I thought that the minister’s statement was a load of waffle. When you first look at it, first read it, there is nothing wrong with it. Why? Because there is nothing in it. It has no substance. I am surprised. I would have thought, having listened to months and months of your grand expectations, that you would have had a lot more in your speech.
I am also surprised that the minister knows about the non-government sector. Why am I surprised? Because of what I hear from members of the non-government sector about how disappointed they are in their lack of access to the minister, the fact that, in order to get messages through, they have to go through one of her minders because she is so busy. I am also surprised, of course, that your plan is talking about crisis management – the need to move from crisis management. Well, I am quite sure that the current CEO must be feeling a bit anxious because he was the CEO under us as well. So, I hope he has his Qantas frequent flyer points all stocked up because I suspect he is going to need them pretty soon.
Now, what is it that you need to do? What it is, is prioritise. I know you are being hit left, right and centre by all sorts of requirements from all sorts of agencies. The tough job when you are in government, instead of moaning and complaining, is to prioritise. And it is hard to do that because you are going to have to disappoint many, many people by having to prioritise. To do that, you need to concentrate on some key items, and may I be so humble as to put forward the issue of hospital nurses. I am glad you picked it up briefly in your statement. As we all know, there is a significant shortage of hospital nurses here in the Northern Territory. Why is this? Well, as a person who has worked for many years as a hospital nurse, let me tell you. The reason is not money for wages, not money for study grants, the reason is that nurses have been trained, they know how to provide a good service, they want to be able to provide that service. The way that you do that is not through increased wages, but by making sure you have nurses working on the wards in a sufficient number to enable the nurses there to do their job and to care for the patients.
You have said in your statement, and you talk in your mini-budget and in your election promises, that you are going to increase the number of hospital nurses in the Northern Territory over the next four years by 75. So, about 18 new nurses in the four public hospitals of the Northern Territory over the next four years. Well, let’s be a little generous with those figures. That might be one for Katherine Hospital a year, one for Tennant Creek Hospital a year, four for Alice Springs Hospital a year, and perhaps twelve at the Royal Darwin Hospital. Well, that’s great. But when you read the mini-budget, read the small print, you find out that the staffing for the hospice and the birthing suite - those promises - guess where they are coming from?
Mr Dunham: And the oncology.
Ms CARTER: And the Oncology Unit. Those nurses are coming out of that allocation of 75 over four years. What I want to know is, how many nurses are going each year into the really tough areas of hospital nursing? And I would claim that to be the medical area. That is what the nurses want to know: where are the staff going? Every area is difficult, but I would say that the medical area is one of the heaviest and most difficult areas to work in. So I ask you, I challenge you, to tell the nurses in Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital in particular, and Katherine and Tennant Creek, how many nurses extra are going into these tough non-glamorous areas to work in? Because that is what they will really want you to do. Because once you get that staffing number right in those units then you attract nurses, you retain nurses because you do not have nurses going home at the end of every shift usually 30 minutes, 45 minutes, an hour late - unpaid overtime - because that is the way that you behave when you are a nurse – generous activities. They want to know how many extra nurses …
Mr Henderson: Why wasn’t this wisdom delivered to the previous health minister?
Ms CARTER: You made the promises, you are in government now, the people voted for you because of these promises. Okay, you tell them how many nurses in each of these units, what are your promises on a per annum basis. It’s not coming out.
I notice from the minister’s statement that she comments about Alice Springs Hospital in particular. I will put it to you that that is somewhat insulting when the reference is in there that previous managers have not tried hard enough to recruit. I can tell you from my experience and from my inside knowledge of this area, the management of Alice Springs Hospital has worked desperately for a long time to try and recruit nurses into their area. It is compounded, of course, by the isolation of Alice Springs, by the general lack of nurses in the profession, people working in the profession, because they don’t really like it anymore. These are your problems. I can just say in defence of the Alice Springs Hospital staff, that I know they have worked tirelessly for a long time in a difficult situation to recruit staff.
I also note from your statement that you are working with the union in an effort to assist in the Alice Springs hospital. Well, that is great, because I have been wondering where the ANF has been for the last six months. They have been very quiet. Prior to that …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARTER: … in the media, but not now, very quiet, and why am I concerned? Because now you have a situation in Alice Springs Hospital where you have non-registered personnel working instead of nurses, and where is the union, where is their voice on this issue? There is a skills difference between registered and non-registered staff, and the criteria must be that registered nurses provide certain skills, and it is not happening at the moment.
Now at last, and by golly it took a long time, the minister has come out with some comments with regard to violence against nurses. She was very quiet a few weeks ago when this issue flared up, but she is out with it now. Personally, my experience is, and I am sure some of you will know what I am talking about, is that what this government tried to do, and they have done it today with the screeches from the member for Sanderson, what they are into, is gagging public servants and certainly that has been occurring with violence against nurses particularly in remote areas. The Public Sector Employment and Management Act gets waved around, and the code of conduct …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARTER: … and for those of you who don’t know, the code of conduct was about public servants not being allowed to speak to the media. Now, when we were in government …
Mr ELFERINK: Point of order, Madam Speaker, I am sure I just heard the minister for health make a comment about the husband of the member for Port Darwin and I am curious to know what that comment was, because it is a general rule of thumb in this Chamber that we don’t reflect on people’s spouses and families.
Mrs Aagaard: I withdraw any comments, Madam Speaker.
- Madam SPEAKER: It has been withdrawn.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, would you resume your seat. Member for Sanderson, you have done this a number of times today. Just refrain from your outrageous behaviour. I am warning you. Member for Port Darwin.
Ms CARTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I do prefer not to have to yell.
Getting back to my point, we had the member for Sanderson comment earlier on in this afternoon’s discussions that he would like to know the name, rank and serial number, essentially, of the prison officers concerned with the previous …
Mr KIELY: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not make such a remark. I did not ask the name, rank or serial number of any officer. I asked for the face and the name of the people who had made the complaints to the member for Katherine so that they could be rightfully addressed through the proper public service procedures.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, will you rephrase your comments.
Ms CARTER: I will accept that that was the member for Sanderson’s statement, and I thank him for it, because it once again reflects that the Public Sector Employment and Management Act is going to be waved around where issues that are brought to the opposition’s notice are being pursued in this Chamber. Gagging, as I say.
The issue of violence and nurses, and being in a remote area is a tough issue, but it is not going to be solved by what often gets mooted – cross-cultural training and the like, so that nurses can understand the problem better, and I suspect, duck when the time comes. In the minister’s speech, she makes a comment and refers to the aggression response strategy. I look forward to hearing more about it and seeing how she develops that over the next few years. Can I say, that what I hope is in it, is the need to conduct safety audits at each of the nursing stations, the health stations out bush, to conduct a risk analysis based on that audit. The actions that come from that may include some level of training, but they may also include the need for escorts, so that when a nurse is called out after hours and there is no one much around, that there is someone there to escort him or her to the area where the patient might be and to stay with them to offer some element of safety. They might also have guards at the community health centre. This sounds all very drastic, but you know that from time to time, situations arise out bush where such measures are needed. At the moment what tends to happen on communities, through the goodwill of the community volunteers from within the population provide those services. In some communities it works very well, but it is an ad hoc measure and it is a difficult thing to sustain. It is something that this government must look at.
From that, of course, comes what do you do with a member from a community who does assault a nurse. I believe the person should be pursued in the usual manner, prosecuted and sent to jail. These people are not the result of some sort of process. These people are bad people who assault nurses. They should not do it, we do not tolerate it in any of our urban centres, and we should not be tolerating it out bush either. There is no need to be weak about it, no need to be politically correct, pursue these people and show everybody that you mean business, that nurses must be safe out in remote communities.
In her statement, the minister makes a brief reference to the issue of drug use in our community. We all know that in a few months this government is going to set up a methadone maintenance program or something similar, using some sort of similar drug. I just want to make a comment on behalf of the people from Port Darwin, and that is we look forward to seeing your clinic and your program established in Fannie Bay.
Speaking of the minister’s statement, I notice no mention of the hospice. I wonder what has happened to that. I hope we hear more about that in the next few days of these sittings. Where is the hospice?
In conclusion, I found it a disappointing statement. It is the first effort from the minister. I know it has been cobbled together by your bureaucrats, but my disappointment does not matter at all. What really matters is the disappointment of the 40% of Territorians who voted Labor at the last election, because three-and-a-half years down the track from now, you are going to be up for re-election again and these are the things that are going to perhaps come back and bite you.
Mr AH KIT: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member for Port Darwin should address her comments through the Chair instead of across the Chamber and being provocative.
Madam SPEAKER: The point of order is correct. Please direct your comments, and that applies to all the speakers.
Ms CARTER: I do apologise, Madam Speaker, for this provocative activity. In three-and-a-half years the Territory population will go to the polls and the outcome of statements like this will be measured, they will be evaluated. But what do we have after six months - only an element of crisis coming from our new minister. This statement is weak and it comes from a weak minister. I would like to see her moved out, and let’s have somebody who can do something. Somebody who can deal with more than one portfolio - I notice she only has one – and also capable of developing priorities.
May I say, minister, you need to impress not just me, or the population but also your colleagues on the other side, because your colleagues have very high ideals, I know that, and they are going to be easily disappointed. You are going to be frustrated over the next few years as the realisation of what it is like to be government comes in and settles on you. So I do wish you all the best, but I think it was a weak effort. We look forward to seeing how you progress.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, direct your comments through the Chair. Member for Greatorex, quiet. It would be good if government members would allow their member to have her say.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I rise in relation to the Minister for Health and Community Services’ statement regarding her department’s priorities for the next 12 months. First up, I welcome the commitment that has been made by the minister to table, during the next sittings, a statement specifically focussing on indigenous health. After 26 years of successive CLP governments, the life expectancy for indigenous people in the Northern Territory is still 15 to 20 years lower than for non-indigenous Territorians. On almost every health indicator, indigenous Territorians remain at the bottom of the scale. This cannot be allowed to continue, and I certainly look forward to elaborating further when the time arises during the statement.
Another comment that I wish to make, and without wanting in any way to diminish - and I don’t want this to be misinterpreted or misunderstood in any way - the fundamentally important role that nurses play in our health system, a role that is mentioned in the minister’s statement. I would like to take a moment to highlight the special role which is very rarely mentioned because when we talk about primary health care services - and anyone who has had the years that they purport to have working out in remote communities - yes, nurses play a very important role. But there is another discipline that works alongside nurses, and that is the special role that Aboriginal health workers play in that system. They not only have their clinical workload but are, in most cases, the cultural brokers between the community and non-Aboriginal staff and are expected to take the brunt of the social and emotional pressure as well. A review of this area needs to happen, and I look forward to working with the Minister for Health and Community Services in addressing this.
When things go wrong, they are most likely to wear the lion’s share of the blame; the declining number of health workers is substantially due to the lack of support they receive. This is a great matter of concern to me, and is one that I want to join the Minister for Health and Community Services in addressing. I wholeheartedly endorse the proposed shift of emphasis away from crisis management in favour of strategic decision making. For too long the health of Territorians, including those from my electorate, have suffered as a result of short term and short-sighted programs and policies developed under former CLP ministers.
Youth suicide: over the past three weeks, I have felt the sorrow and pain as a family member where there has been senseless suicides of three young men. The commitment from our health minister to address this as a priority is welcomed. Everyone in this parliament has in some way been confronted or touched by this issue, either directly or indirectly, and we certainly need to address it.
Madam Speaker, I support and commend the statement by the Minister for Health and Community Services.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is my intention to walk through the statement because I think the themes will become evident, but it follows pretty much on the structure that the 5th floor seems to have put in place for the Chief Minister, and that is a bit of blaming, a bit of, ‘You know, it would be well except for you’. Some little glimpses of light on the horizon, many of which have their origins in the policies and practices of the former government, and then finishing with quite an unusual admission that there are some big problems in Alice Springs. Now, we know that. So, it is a bit of pre-emptive strike, this statement, because I think it was evident to nearly everybody that there are some significant problems in Alice Springs Hospital, and with the mini-statement this morning and with this statement, there is an attempt to say: ‘Well, we know about it and it is your fault, anyway’, which I understand is a paraphrase grab of what has been said in the media. I thought if I just walk through the statement it will give a quick edit for honourable members, and it would give the minister some insight into how we think about some of these things.
Right at the front, the minister talks about equality of opportunity, equality of participation to maximise the health and overall quality of life. This goes to the exact point that the former Treasurer tried to make to the minister for industries and business, and that is about the Grants Commission and the monies that come to us and the fact that we live in a Commonwealth - two words joined to one, meaning the money goes across the lot of us.
The whole idea of arguing the case in the Northern Territory is that we do not have equality of access. We do not have it. Aboriginal people do not have it. Territorians do not have it. The cultural cringe that the member for Wanguri has about the fact that the Commonwealth gives more money on a per capita basis to the Territory than any other place goes to the heart of the statement. In fact, one of the speakers, the member for Karama talked about hoping that the minister fixes up this issue and to do it, and hoping she is successful in her discussions with the Commonwealth. The fact is, that is where the treasure chest is, and in the Territory we do not have equality of access. There are a variety of documents that will show you that, and one of the problems is a fundamental problem with a thing called the Australian Health Care Agreement and how funds are distributed to doctors and pharmacists through the MBS and PBS agreements.
This is an issue that, with Labor governments around Australia, could be taken on. We could take the politics out of it and say: ‘Australia’s health system does not serve us well. It is not geared well to maintaining health. It is geared well to paying doctors’. I think if we can take this - there were other discussions, too - what does the opposition think about the future? Here is a future for you. Let’s look at how we reconfigure the nation’s health system and let’s reconfigure it to the best benefit of the Territory, but also Australians, because we should be looking to have a health system that attends to health rather than pays doctors.
There is one thing in the first couple of paragraphs where we would probably agree with her. I mean, they have the ducks all lined up now, and it is one of those things that people have taken to elections before and said: ‘This mob will wreck Medicare and it’s a very precious thing’. I think it could be changed for the better, and that is something that could be injected into this sort of debate.
Now we get into the litany of terrible things we have done, and we are only on page 2: ‘Compounding the severe budget difficulties we inherited coming into government’. Then it makes an allegation about us which is untrue, and that is: ‘For the sake of members opposite who seem to think we are rolling in untold wealth and thus can fund every organisation who makes a claim for additional money ...’ Now, we have said to this minister: ‘Everybody who comes to see you is going to want money and there is a finite budget and an infinite need’. We have told her the exact opposite of this. That is that it does not matter how much you have, it will not be enough to meet all the demands that come through your door and it is a good theme that the member for Port Darwin gave her - prioritise. Work out your priority areas. And she does that later on, to her credit. In the speech, when we get to page 4, she lists a series of priority areas.
It is not a good allegation to put at the feet of this opposition to say: ‘We believe you have tons of cash.’ We do believe that the $34m extra should be more adequately described to this House, how it has been deployed, particularly in the face of the fact that the CEO asked for an additional $20m and we are interested to know where that money has been deployed. We are interested to know whether it has had the impact of bettering the health status of Territorians. That is what we want to know. I mean, we do not want to know the exact detail other than if you put an injection of funds of this magnitude into a system, we think there should be outcomes, and we think they should be measurable, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that.
Anyway, we get now to the $34m, yet only $17.3m of this was for ongoing items; the rest to meet one-off expenses. We only have $1m left. This is interesting because the Public Accounts Committee is looking at the rollovers, and the rollovers for the Territory Health Services, I think, went to something like $2m. So there are some allegations in here about the difficulties with meeting ongoing commitments, and there is an attempt to leave it as a thing that was inherited. That, I think, is a little bit misleading for this place, and I think that they should probably revisit page 3 and have a good look at it because the health minister will be visiting the PAC and the health minister will give evidence, and some of the questions may well come out of page 3. I mean, they may well come out of the fact that there was $34m extra given - and don’t forget the terms of reference for the PAC, the so-called terrible memo, was about $8m.
So, the numbers we are talking about here are certainly much larger than those which originally confronted this House by way of a censure motion and they are the sort of numbers that I think the current health minister should be well prepared about when she finally comes to talk to the PAC.
Now we go to the broad vision. Broad vision - a phrase we hear a lot - must include, and here are the dot points, and they are not bad: improved health services, medical nursing, attractive conditions - and, like my colleague from Port Darwin, as you get into the statement, you realise these are good things to hear but they are platitudes. This is a statement of platitudes. This is a statement that has come out of reports and people’s heads, and it has been regurgitated to have, I suppose, about three points. One, we did terrible things with the money, which is a theme that comes right throughout every speech we have in here. Two, we know what we are doing and we have a plan and a vision and all those things they talk about. Three, there is a problem with Alice Springs Hospital, but don’t worry, we know about that and anyway it is your problem. And somehow it is intended to give the impression this minister has some handle on her job. And it fails in that also, but I will get to that later.
Anyway, so we go through the dot points, and what I did when I went through them is, I thought well, there may be some things that are missing from here and on a quick count, I mean one of the things in her portfolio - dental, I think is pretty important, is not in there. Children at risk, that is pretty important stuff. Disabilities, gets a mention later on but it is not really in the dot points unless you want to include a robust Community Services sector. Aged care, not really there much. Palliative care, my colleague found, was missing. Disease control, this is pretty important stuff, disease control. This is immunisation of children. This is vector control so that mosquitoes don’t bite people and they get Ross River and all that sort of stuff. It is issues relating to the high incidence of STDs in our communities that has to be recognised, and a potential threat of HIV from East Timor.
This is a significant area of government action that is totally missing out of this statement, and certainly missing out of this statement and certainly missing out of the priority areas. Childcare, I would have thought that an incoming Labor government that claims to have the monopoly on caring and compassion, and women’s issues, and all of those things that people have taken up cudgels for years, would have a mention of childcare. Just even if it just slipped in there somewhere, but it is not there.
So, not only does this statement fail in saying that all of the problems were inherited because of the money problem, not only does it fail in saying the government knows what it is doing - because they don’t - and the minister has a handle on it. Not only does it fail by saying: ‘Please don’t politicise Alice Springs Hospital because we’ve ’fessed up in here. We’ve told you it’s a problem, we’ve told you it’s in crisis. Now leave it alone because otherwise you’re politicising it’. It fails on all of those counts. And the failure is abysmal because this is such an important area. We will debate these again tomorrow, some of these issues, and we hope during these sittings we will get a few other opportunities.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: I shan’t be picking up interjections, Mr Deputy Speaker, because time is limited and some of the interjections that are being levied really only have the ambition of trying to drown the microphones. So, ‘We’ve been left with a plethora of problems to sort, historically unrealistic funding’ blah, blah, blah, and it talks about the non-government sector which has encouraged fragmentation, inefficiencies, dependencies where we need robustness and vitality. So the corollary is, the opposite of fragmentation is collectivism or bringing them together, unification. Inefficiencies means that they have spent more money than they needed, therefore we will cut it, and dependencies means that they were too dependent on the government and we think they should be more independent and more on their own feet. This is code for, ‘we are going to jam you altogether and give you less money’. That is code for that, there is absolutely no doubt about it.
Moving the entire portfolio out of crisis management, that is a allegation that I think is an unfair allegation on the management of Territory Health Services, and it is made again later. I think it is one of those things where it has the potential to send some shivers through the public service. I am happy to say on the record that we do not believe that it is in crisis management to the extent that it is beyond any sort of redemption. The biggest issue confronting the Health Minister is her position in the job and it is something she is going to have to look at because that is the biggest impediment to efficiency in this particular portfolio area.
So, we talk about how we are going to fix it, another buzz word. We’re going to have a change process. Okey doke. And then she says: ‘We are putting in the hard yards, more sustainable, we’re going to fix it up’, quote: ‘This will take time, effort and I stress again, responsible stewardship to achieve’. This is an excuse for sloth - one of the seven deadly sins. This is an excuse that, just because it is not happening, don’t think we are not doing anything. We are working away there; just going to take a bit of time.
When we turn to our hospitals, which is the next bit, it leaves out a very, very significant portion. I mean, the whole capacity to re-focus our hospital effort is to introduce new players, ie, private providers, ie, private hospitals. And it is missing from this statement. Not only do the consumers want choice, whether they avail themselves of it or not is a moot point, but people do want choice and for that reason they carry private health insurance. We also think there is great potential for private sector involvement that is missing from this.
‘Public hospitals in urgent need of steady management and reform …’ - again, another criticism of the management. Problems in the Alice Springs Hospital are ‘… nothing short of alarming’. I want to know if the minister has been there, what she has done, who she has spoken to. Because it is no good getting reports saying that it is in crisis, going on the TV and the radio saying: ‘Look, it’s a big problem down there’. Go and look, go and have a look, it is not that far away.
The nursing shortage, to all intents and purpose ignored by the previous government. Now, I know parliamentary practice prohibits me from saying that is a lie, but that statement finds it very difficult to reconcile with the truth because it is not been something that has been ignored by the previous government. There has been immense amounts of work going into it and that work is on the public record, so it is easily able to be checked.
Patients, here we are, Centralian residents, patients having to wait for beds, etc, etc. I will leave this because I think my colleague from Central Australia will comment more fulsomely on it. But I will make the comment that one of the issues about rebuilding the community’s confidence in the Public Hospital system is because it has been eroded by Labor attacks over a number of years. The member for Wanguri is on the public record saying that A and E is so bad in Royal Darwin Hospital nobody goes there. The reason the numbers are so low is because no one would want to go there. No one would be treated there, no one would take their dog there. That is a pretty significant indictment and the erosion of confidence is because they have inherited their own rhetoric and it has come back to bite them on the backside.
Then we go into this business of some fudgy figures: ‘Don’t you worry, it’s going to get better. As I speak elective surgery is back on the increase. The opening of two new theatres’. You have to benchmark this. All this stuff, all the epidemiological stuff, all the occasions of care, all the weighted estimated in-line systems, all those things are available for this House to peruse in terms of, it is getting better; it used to be this, now it is that. We treated this many people; now we are treating that many people.
It is interesting, for instance, if we go to budget figures. When we left this portfolio area, growth in hospitals was about 2%, and we found with the mini-budget they have something like four times that amount in financial increases. We found that interstate patient assisted travel scheme was steady and even declining. That has gone up remarkably. This government has to tell us why, they have to say why those figures have gone up, and you cannot just say there will be less people on waiting lists and more people treated for elective surgery and you didn’t have much money and all that sort of stuff.
The nurses up 70 in five years - I thank the member for Port Darwin for putting that whole furphy to bed. I will make a comment about methodology again. The previous speaker, having been castigated by the Speaker for departing remarkably from her speech in a number of areas and I think, to give her credit, it was because of omission. She got to the end of the speech, she had not mentioned arts or ethnics so she just put arts and ethnics down the bottom, but the same thing has happened with this minister where I had a circulated speech which has now been changed. The change is probably due to embarrassment. She is going to fix up the real problem of violence against nurses. Quote: ‘This is a complex issue, for which there is no quick fix. But again, with stewardship, real improvements can be made’. Now stewardship is looking after other people’s stuff. And I could not understand how the government, the minister, looking after other people’s business, would fix that, until I looked up the dictionary. And a steward is someone in charge of a mess. And I think that is the heart of the problem. The speech was changed to put in the word ‘leadership’, but I am quite happy to table my copy of the circulated speech.
What we have here is somebody in charge of the mess, and they are also trying to reconcile that. The minister has no idea, very little idea of holistic primary health care, has very little idea of work in a clinical setting and she overlaps the two of them. I am very interested to see how we ask nurses - these are nurses in a hospital - and these hospital nurses are being asked to look ‘… beyond the wound, the disease, take in the whole person, their history, their wider social, political and cultural circumstances’. I think most nurses in the Territory would find that offensive. They would find it offensive to be looking at the political circumstances of a person they are treating. The fact that somebody might possess the politics of those over, the politics of division and all that stuff that they now try to parade out as something they would like to forget - but that statement in there about nurses looking beyond the wound at the political circumstances of someone, I think is offensive. It is offensive to me and it is offensive to nurses. Now, I think it offends one of the bills we were debating this morning, the anti-discrimination bill.
There are many, many more things in here that we have to address and I think we will do it …
Dr Burns: That you don’t want to talk about, like drug abuse and morphine.
Mr DUNHAM: I pick up the interjection, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could I ask for an extension of time please?
Mr Ah Kit: No.
Mr DUNHAM: I do want to talk about it, and I don’t have time. I will finish by saying we have a minister here who is the bunny in the spotlight. She has the job, she can hear the diesel truck, the little white ears are twitching, the nose is up, the little myopic eyes are looking into the headlights, and she is saying: ‘Ah well, there is a problem here’. Now, the little rumbling on the road she hears of Alice Springs Hospital, the disability sector, ain’t nothing, it ain’t nothing compared to …
Mr AH KIT : A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Would you like to indicate that the member’s time has expired?
Dr Lim: No, it has not.
Mr AH KIT: No, I am just asking you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.
Mr DUNHAM: No, I think it is a deliberate waste of time. Resume your seat. The bunny in the spotlight …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order. There is still time.
Mr DUNHAM: … is looking up and can smell the diesel and feel the ground rumble. Now, I think it is time that she reviews her position. To say the non-government sector are happy, we have had these disability meetings and they are just swimming with joy over this unmet need, is a patent nonsense. The sector is livid, the sector is worried, the sector is concerned about the style of Labor in being vindictive about treating people who speak out. Many of them come to me and want me to take it up to her. What I have been saying to her is: ‘This is your job. You did it for me, you always criticised me if you thought that I was doing things you did not like. Please go and see this minister’. They can’t get in, they can’t get near her. The letter that I saw that was sent out saying: ‘There was 600 groups who want to see me’ and ‘Sorry, I will get to you in the next couple of …’ - they still can not get in. This is a problem.
The minister made promises and she was away on R and R at the time, so it was done on her behalf, and, ‘I’m off to Tennant’. Did not make it. Did not make it to Tennant Creek.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your time has expired.
Ms CARTER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the shadow minister be allowed an extension of time to complete his comments.
Motion negatived.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to speak in support of the minister’s statement regarding health and, more importantly, in support of the minister for health’s concerted and honest response on behalf of the Martin government in providing a strategic response, thus ensuring a viable, efficient and cost-effective health care in the interests of all sectors of the community in the Territory.
The task before us cannot be underestimated and, clearly, we need to proceed in a strategic and measured way utilising the existing health professionals and expert management within Territory Health, and also being bold and innovative by developing partnerships with the non-government sector, indigenous health carers and, where appropriate, the health sector. The minister for health referred to the national shortage of nurses and its resultant impact, in part, on our capacity to provide sustainable health services in the major centres and regions. I applaud the minister in respect of the development of a new marketing strategy for recruitment purposes and improved career structures for nurses.
I also believe that we must consider the review of the role of indigenous health workers. Indigenous health workers for a long period of time have performed a very important role in addressing the deplorable health status of people in the bush in very trying circumstances, dissimilar to what occurs to our community health nurses. I would argue that the dynamics of communities have changed in the Territory over the last 20 years and so it would logically follow, so would the role of indigenous health workers, and equally, I would suspect, the expectations of the members of the community. I would put to members on both sides of the House, that people living in communities and on pastoral properties, at roadhouses etc, expect the same level of care and quality of care afforded their city cousins within the resource base.
Polite nurses and health workers have been burdened with an impossible task of being all things to all people with minimum support and a lack of a career structure. It may now be timely to investigate the options of separating the role of health carers in communities into two separate functions - one having a primary health care clinical role and a the other a preventative public health function. These are mainly in the larger communities. Certainly, there would be resource implications, but it may be worth looking at as part of the zone development.
I now turn to the multi-purpose services initiative aimed at improving the provision and viability of aged and health care service in rural remote areas of the Territory. This initiative allows the integration of existing aged care services, thus ensuring a better coordination and a more flexible response to the community’s direction and needs under the one management structure. This initiative also increases the capacity to manage human resources such as staff, recruitment and training at a local level. Discussions have been ongoing since September 2001, and a steering committee has been established consisting of all stakeholders, and I understand that a project officer will be appointed to progress this model in consultation with the community when appropriate. I am, of course, referring to the MPS model.
I am pleased to report the establishment of two health zones north and south of Tennant Creek, and one for the Gulf country including Borroloola and Robinson River. These initiatives will have a significant impact on allowing the communities in question to have a real say in developing their respective health services and, I trust, will promote and engender a degree of ownership - perhaps lacking in the past - and make real inroads in alleviating the ill health that is so prevalent in this region. Also, in respect of zone development and as an indication of our commitment to be inclusive and to involve all stakeholders, I, on behalf of the minister, approached the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association basically requesting that they be party to the exercise. I understand a briefing will be provided to the same in the very near future. But, in respect to these zone development initiatives, and as the minister mentioned, we will have to be vigilant and be ready to provide support and assistance as required during these changes, and I am absolutely certain that we will.
Also in regards to Borroloola , the Chairperson of the Northern Territory Liquor Commission will be visiting this community very soon to consult and assist the community in developing a strategy in respect to excessive alcohol abuse which will dovetail into the zone development process.
Of interest to me and many others on both sides of this House, is the issue of youth suicide and its debilitating effect on small communities in the bush. During my short period in this place, there have been at least three suicides, and one attempted, in my electorate, all being young people. I am grateful that the minister has recognised this very real and traumatic issue and made a commitment to at least try to address it. I would remind the opposition that it is not before time.
I take this opportunity to advise of recent developments in respect to the establishment of the renal dialysis unit in Tennant Creek. Over the past few months, the Renal Management Committee in Tennant Creek has been working in close consultation with the minister for the health’s department, specifically Julie Whatley, in progressing this initiative, to the extent that a project officer will be appointed very shortly to assist the committee in coordinating local responses such as patient and accommodation travel, and support for the families and the patients. Again, I say that this initiative is well overdue and again to the opposition, not before time. It is important to note in respect of the Renal Dialysis Unit, that all stakeholders are working very closely together to bring this much needed facility online by the end of this month.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Julie Whatley, Dr Randal Davis, Ashley Frost, Barb Shaw, Graham Buxton, Dr Helen Carney, Mark Raymond, Ruby Frank, Carol Fitzslade, Anyinginyi Congress Board, and Julalikari Council and Territory Health for their commitment and dedication in respect of this project.
I applaud the minister for health for approaching the Northern Territory Council of Social Services to convene two fora to bring the non-government sector together to jointly foster solutions and in the interest of all service providers on an industry wide basis. It is very important that we as a government include all interests in a very honest and straight way thus maximising the dollar allocation in a very responsible manner.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to the minister for health’s realistic response to the many difficult and pressing health issues we face.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I join in this debate having read through the minister’s statement on a couple of occasions trying to glean what I can from it. It really is a statement full of motherhood statements, platitudes. It is a statement from a minister who has done nothing much about her portfolio. There is no denying it. Let’s not deny it. We know that caucus has reprimanded the minister for her incapacity to perform in her portfolio.
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: Your children have been to school telling people that caucus had reprimanded and the minister is heading for the chop. Well, we will be seeing that soon I trust. You have contributed very little to this portfolio and you talk about equal opportunities across the Territory for all Territorians. You admit it yourself that Alice Springs Hospital is in diabolical trouble. And what have you done about it? Nothing.
Mr Stirling: What did you do in your Minister with responsibility for Central Australia? What did you do?
Dr LIM: What have you done about it? Nothing. At least I helped out. What have you done? You did nothing. There is no equal opportunity for all Territorians when you have a hospital in Alice Springs that is dysfunctional, inadequately staffed, inadequately resourced, beds going wanting, patients lying there in emergency for up to three days waiting for a bed in a ward and then you have a full private wing completed and sitting empty. That is irresponsible. You could use that ward as a step down facility to get those less demanding patients out of the rooms.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, please address your remarks through the Chair.
Dr LIM: The minister could get the private wing operational now as a step down facility easily so that patients who require less demanding care could be housed in there freeing up the beds in the ward for acute care. That is easily done. Doesn’t take much imagination to do that. But what has she done about it? Nothing. It was boarded up at one stage. Why? Because itinerants had found a fire escape through which they could get into the private wing and they were camping there for the night. Finally, they had to turn them out because somebody caught them sleeping in that wing. Now they have some secretarial staff in there so that they can keep an eye on the particular property.
The minister talked about her mini-budget where she gave $34.2m to the Health Department. I know for a fact that the Chief Executive Officer asked for $20m and through the mini-budget he received $34.2m. But the minister had the audacity to tell us that she only has $1m left. How is that Chief Executive Officer functioning? How has he managed to spend so much money and only have $1m left for the rest of this financial year? It makes no sense. When he asked for $20m, he received $34.2m and he has $1m left. Now, either he is not working well or she is not working well and you tell me who is the one not functioning.
She has allowed the hospital in Alice Springs to become so dysfunctional that many patients now are not getting treatment. Patients are being flown out of Alice Springs because they cannot receive treatment that they used to receive in the hospital. In the Centralian Advocate on 11 December last year, in big headlines on the front page, ‘Doctor tells of hospital crisis’:
A seriously ill man had to wait three days to get into intensive care, a doctor has claimed.
The doctor, who asked not to be named, has demanded the hospital tell the public just how bad
conditions are. The doctor said:
- up to eight patients are waiting daily in the emergency department for 12 hours or
more to get a bed in the ward.
many of them have to leave before receiving proper care.
one patient fasted each day for four days in preparation for an operation he never
received - so he left.
patients are waiting up to four days for operations of fractures and infected injuries.
That is the type of problem the Alice Springs Hospital is facing and this minister has the audacity to tell us she has been to Alice Springs three times to look at the hospital; in six months she has been there three times. If you have a hospital that is falling apart you would be there every day looking at it to see what is going on and making sure that the department and the managerial staff are looking after it properly.
Another rather large headline we have seen in the same newspaper of 11 December last year ‘Hospital plea: Not urgent? See a GP’:
Alice Springs Hospital management have issued a plea: If it’s not urgent please see your GP.
The plea followed claims that Alice Springs Hospital was facing a ‘super crisis’.
That is what it says there. And the minister tells me that she is doing her work well.
Another one within a couple of weeks, 25 January 2002 ‘Alice Springs Hospital in Crisis Mode’, a long letter written by someone in Alice Springs:
The people of Alice Springs are not being adequately informed about the shortages at the hospital. But you
need to look at who is making it difficult for nurses to accept a position and stay in the region. The hospital is
letting the town and the nurses down.
Nurses at the hospital have attempted to pass the concerns on to the Chief Minster’s Office here in Alice Springs
but nobody there wanted to know or couldn’t do anything about it, so where do we go now?
A couple of paragraphs down the letter continues:
Six nurses recently resigned due to overly heavy workloads and the inability of the hospital to recognise and
rectify the problem.
Then it says further on:
So what is the message, that the overuse of the good nature of many nurses at the hospital is satisfactory, that
the fact that they are burnt out, tired and fed up is of no concern?
How many people in the community know a nurse who has left this hospital - and in some cases left nursing
altogether - because they were not appreciated at the ASH and refuse to work in the Alice Springs Hospital
ever again.
That is the type of problems that have been going on: Injured man – 14 hours of agony. Another letter titled, ‘Long wait for surgery queried’:
Is this the same department that has had my husband on the Alice Springs Hospital elective surgery waiting
list for 13 months for a hernia operation?
Our town has a lovely ‘new’ hospital, and now there’s obviously plenty of money to direct towards worthwhile
projects, so why should someone who is in constant pain and discomfort, and whose livelihood is threatened by
an inability to work to 100% capacity, have to wait without hearing so much as a word of explanation or
encouragement?
And finally, the minister could not respond. She had to hide behind her CEO to respond, telling us how her hospitals would improve. And what? The hospital has not improved. The hospital has not improved. We have been to briefings at the hospital by the manager of the hospital, by the medical superintendent and the acting director of nursing and the story they tell us universally is that the hospital has great problems and management is struggling to try to convince the Darwin bureaucrats and the minister that they have to pay attention to Alice Springs. They have said that.
Mr Henderson: This is the CLP Darwin bureaucrat Len Notaris, is it?
Dr LIM: I take on that interjection from the member for Wanguri. He knows full well that Len Notaris is no longer responsible down there, that he has been sidelined by the Darwin bureaucrats and the minister and the government. They have sidelined him. The challenge that this minister faces is, number one, to do her job properly, and she has not done that. You talked about your hospitals, improvement in patient care. Well, you have failed there. You have definitely failed there. Reduction of waste and duplication - you failed there, too. Now, if I wanted to give you a report card, the minister is going to score very, very badly.
We talked about the operating theatre. The minister said that now two theatres are open, there will be more surgery. On the page before it, it says that she could not find any nurses. She could not find any nurses for the Alice Springs Hospital and that is the problem. But then she opens two new theatre suites and suddenly we will do more surgery. Where are the nurses going to come from? She contradicts herself in this statement, or maybe she did not bother to read it through properly first before she approved of this speech that somebody wrote for her.
Think about it. The advisors are sitting in the box there, they maybe should think about it, too, that they do not contradict themselves and make the minister look really foolish. You cannot have two new theatres…
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been well regarded practice in this House that we do not reflect on people sitting in the advisors’ boxes; they are public servants and they should not be the target of the members’ comments.
Dr LIM: They are not public servants, they are your servants, and I can say that the minister’s advisors wrote the speech for her.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. Member for Greatorex, there was a point of order. I agree with the point of order. I think you need to withdraw the comment about…
Dr LIM: Well, I will withdraw the comment that they are sitting in the boxes, but I can say that the minister’s advisors wrote the statement for her. I can say that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think just stick with the spirit of what we are trying to do.
Dr LIM: No, what I’m saying - I withdraw the statement that I said they were sitting in the boxes, but I can say that the speech was written by her advisors and they did it wrongly. They did not consider the contradiction they wrote in the minister’s statement that she then has to present and make a fool of herself.
Dr Burns: Mean spirited.
Dr LIM: Mean spirited?
Dr Burns: Absolutely.
Dr LIM: You should look at the mirror sometime and see what you see there.
Dr Burns: I have a generous spirit.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr LIM: Elective surgery in Alice Springs has suffered so greatly in the last six months, it is a disgrace. Patients are being flown out of town because the Alice Springs Hospital cannot look after them any more. This is the only hospital a thousand miles from any major centre. We have regarded that hospital as our main focus of all health treatment and this government has not cared for it.
Ms Scrymgour: Neither did your government.
Dr LIM: I did my bit, and my government did very well to put $30m of refurbishment of the hospital, making sure it is the best hospital that money can buy for Central Australia, and we even provided a private wing. We had three very strong expressions of interest, and what do we have today? We have an empty ward not used for anything except for a couple of secretaries working in a typing room; that is all it is used for. What a waste of money, and this town desperately needs it. This town has many people who are privately insured; they should be given the choice and they cannot even have that.
The minister ought to know that by using a private hospital facility, it will free up at least 15 beds in the public system. That in itself will help the hospital, but what has the minister done about it? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. She has not spoken to any of the GPs to see whether they might be encouraged to use that part of the hospital. There are private specialists working at the Alice Springs Hospital and in the Alice Springs town itself. They could be using the private wing, but they have not done that. They have not done that. It is important that the minister should get to Alice Springs at least once a month, if not more frequently, to see what is wrong with the system and sort it out.
The minister talked about the housing for – she is in joint planning with the Departments of Housing and Health and Community Services for Territorians whose accommodation needs are complex and difficult to meet. Well, did you know that the minister, in bold headlines, ‘ALP fails to keep pledge on hostel’? The ALP pre-election promise was to fully fund the Red Shield Hostel in Alice Springs and now, in the last few weeks, her weasel words, she has tried and tell them: ‘No, you can’t. You can have $64 000 and do what we tell you’. And that is the sort of mean spirited ALP that causes expectations in Alice Springs that cannot be met. It is important for the minister to fulfil the ALP pledge before the election. People are sleeping in the river as Captain Derek Schmidtke said, and also Major Merrett. People are being sent away from the regional hostel with blankets to sleep in the river, and over this last two or three weeks in Alice Springs the rains have been pretty bad. We are nearly as wet down there as you are up here, and you could not sleep in the river. It is time the ALP fulfils its promises.
I am sorry that this statement is really not acceptable from a Central Australian perspective; it is woefully deficient. I say once more to the minister: it is important that she gets down there, talks to the officers, and make sure that the Chief Minister’s office in Alice Springs is accessible to people because at present it is not. It is a woeful statement.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I just thought I would raise a couple of points …
Mr Kiely: Better come back in, that’s what you thought.
Mr BALDWIN: Oh, you’re here. Are you back?
Mr Deputy Speaker, a couple of points - in fact, one that you raised very eloquently yourself that I intended to raise, and that is the news today of a proposed funding cut to one very well known, unique, in fact, alcohol rehabilitation centre, and that is of course the Five Mile Rehabilitation Centre at Daly River, one that you are very familiar with. Having talked to the folk there just today, they are very concerned by a recent visit by health staff to that facility and talks with the administration of that facility in regards to the future funding of that Five Mile Rehabilitation Centre. I say it is unique because the demand on that facility from around Australia - not just the Northern Territory but around Australia because it is seen as a unique style of rehabilitating substance abuse problems, particularly alcohol problems - is well known, well documented, and speaks volumes for itself in the demand of people who would like to go there.
It has been held up over many, many years, as the member for Nelson has articulated, for its great success. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, you quoted 99%. I would put it almost at 100%, but we won’t quibble about 1%. It is a unique facility. It is unique because it brings the families there, they work on an holistic basis and my understanding- and I would like the minister to confirm this because it is causing great concern not only at Five Mile but at the Nauiyu community which is very much involved in this centre. It is not only a source for local pride, it is not only a source for local employment, it is not only a place of refuge in times of floods. In fact over the last week as the 17 m of water that came down the Katherine River flowing into the Daly River, as we all know it does, the Five Mile is a refuge for the Nauiyu people. So there is a very close association, a very close connection there, and there is great concern amongst the 500 or so population in that region as to the future of Five Mile, and what it means when an officer of your department comes down, under instruction from your policy development, and says, we no longer fund these types of facilities in the way they have been funded in the past. The member for Nelson articulated the type of funding and the amounts of funding.
I would like to clarify here tonight, in fact, I have undertaken to get some clarification for the people at both the Nauiyu Council and the Five Mile facility to get some answers as to this latest information that they have received that they may have to close their doors on 30 June 2002 this year. It would be very upsetting for everybody concerned, the Catholic diocese, the people who work in that facility and the rehabilitated families. And I say families because that is how they treat the people who have abuse problems. It is not just individuals that they deal with, they deal with whole families, and there would be great concern if this facility was to close. It is of utmost importance. You mentioned that you were going to bring on an Aboriginal health statement. I look forward to that, but I cannot wait for answers. I will raise this question in that statement which may come on in the next sittings, and it is going to be interesting to see what you have to say. But this needs an answer tonight because it is of great concern.
The other issue that I know you are aware of, and also deals with alcohol rehabilitation, is the issue at Dillinya. I am sure you are very well aware of where Dillinya is now, and what it does and how it has been funded. You might say this was a one-off funding program. In fact, if I was to step into your shoes for a minute, not that I want to, but if I was, I think …
Ms Lawrie: You wouldn’t be able to.
Mr BALDWIN: No I wouldn’t, that is true. I will pick up that interjection. I would not be able to step into the minister’s shoes.
I would say that your answer to this Dillinya question might be that this was a CLP initiative that only had one-off funding. Okay, and I accept that, because it was a CLP initiative, and it did have some funding for a year’s worth of operational funds, in terms of salary. But this is another unique program, run by Aboriginal people, on Aboriginal land, with the involvement of traditional owners of that land, to help find solutions for alcohol abuse problems, and substance abuse of other types, in a way different to what we are used to. It was a pilot program; there was initial funding. You might also say that there has never been an official application, and I will accept that too, but I would like to see some undertaking tonight …
Mr Ah Kit: Do your job, you’re the local member.
Mr BALDWIN: Absolutely, and I will pick up that interjection, because I am the local member, and this is how this whole issue came to light. One of the counsellors of that pilot program and one of the traditional owners, rang me out of concern that she had heard nothing about additional funding. Anglicare is the support agency, and they were having trouble getting anywhere, I guess, with what the future might hold for Dillinya, and if there was no official application for funding, I will accept that, that’s fine.
However, I was disturbed when the minister’s office rang that particular person at Dillinya to ask if this had been a set up by Baldwin, very concerned, and I don’t think I will repeat what the lady told me she said to the officer from the minister’s office in regard to that question, but it would be very interesting for some of you to hear it in other forums. I take umbrage at that, because, I am sure the member for Arnhem knows the particular lady I am talking about, and she is a lady of such determination, such courage, and such conviction in what she is doing, in having developed her own program as far as alcohol rehabilitation goes, and having …
Mr Ah Kit: Why didn’t you help them get incorporated?
Mr BALDWIN: Pardon?
Mr Ah Kit: Why didn’t you help them get incorporated?
Mr BALDWIN: They are incorporated.
Mrs Aagaard: No they’re not. That is why they cannot get funding directly.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay, the member for Arnhem asked why they can’t be incorporated. So, is that an excuse?
Mr Ah Kit: No, why didn’t you as a local member, help them get incorporated?
Mr BALDWIN: Is that an excuse? You put on the public record that that is why you will not fund this program into this financial year. You put that on the record because I am very sure that that lady, who you know very well, would be delighted to hear it.
Madam Speaker, and I will put these through you, because I know that they will want to raise an objection about the way I am directing my questions, and concerns directly to them. This is a unique situation. This is a unique program. This should be highlighted and hailed, by this government particularly, as a program that can be held up in the face of all other programs to help Aboriginal people overcome particular problems within their community, and they are not getting an answer. And I really do take umbrage that the office of the minister rings up this particular organisation and asks if it is a set up of mine, when this lady, in particular, the counsellor, trained and accredited, traditional owner in her own right, running this program, and very successfully for the past eight or nine months, is a constituent of mine and has every right to ring her local member to ask for some assistance in furthering her desires and her ambitions. Ambitions that she has fought for for over ten years, that include putting herself through accreditation as a counsellor, canvassing government over a long period of time to get government to understand that she had something quite unique and it was worth a go. I would like to see a commitment by the minister to give this particular program a go.
So there are two things here. There are two alcohol rehabilitations, particularly directed at Aboriginal people and Aboriginal families, on Aboriginal land, run predominantly by Aboriginal people, with church assistance in regard to the Five Mile, which is very appropriate and it has been very successful for over 20 years, that all of a sudden, within the last few weeks, have no certainty of their future. I think it is an indictment that it has even reached this point. If this minister thinks that she knows what is going on, then I would like to hear about it, and I would like some firm commitments. Some commitments to the future of what you espouse to be your role as far as Aboriginal issues go. It is time you spoke up, and put your name …
Mr Henderson: It is a whole new constituency you have discovered since you have been in opposition. It is amazing. A whole new constituency. A whole new constituency you have found - neglected Aboriginal people in health for 26 years.
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up on the interjection. This is a government that pretends to have a social agenda. Well, I can tell you, it is a real agenda. This is the Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development - when was it? last week in Katherine – who met with some business people there. I am not going to go into details, because this way something will never get done if I go into the details, because it is in my electorate. This minister met with some business people who raised an issue …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: Listen, listen, it is my electorate, where is my electorate?
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: You wouldn’t know. Florina Road! See how much he knows. Has not been outside Wanguri. Met with some business people; business people raised an issue about some infrastructure that needs doing. What did he say? The minister for industry and business said, ‘Unless it has a social outcome, we are not interested’.
Mr Henderson: No, I did not. In regard to what? In regard to what – put it into context.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay, well it is not my word. It is a business person’s word against his word and I do not have to defend it. I am just relaying the information.
Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I question the member’s relevance to health in the statement.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I think the comments we have had have been very wide-ranging and I don’t think there is a point of order.
Mr BALDWIN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The minister for industries and business made an interjection and you know that it is normal practice to pick up on interjections.
And so, that is their social agenda. If there is no economic outcome, they are not interested. It has to have a social outcome. And this is directly relayed from some business people he met with a week ago.
Mr Henderson: You were at the lunch.
Mr BALDWIN: So, getting back to the issue. Yes, I was at lunch and I heard you say a number of things. But we will get into those a little bit later. I will save those ones.
The issue I have raised - and my colleague, the member for Nelson has raised - are very important issues, and they go to the core of what this government purports to stand for.
Mr Burke: The social agenda, the Aboriginal social agenda.
Mr BALDWIN: The social agenda, particularly for remote areas of …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, both of these areas are in my electorate which I have served for over eight years. I will defy anybody to stands up here and say that I have just discovered these things. I will take that on any day.
Mr Ah Kit: Tell us about protest at Port Keats about the bilingual education. Tell us about the protest at Wadeye.
Mr BALDWIN: Okay. Member for Arnhem, I will pick up on those objections. I am happy to do this all night. Let’s look at the time he went down to his electorate, seeing we are talking about electorate issues. He wants to raise it as his most important issue. And where was he on one of these important occasions? I think it was the Barunga Festival, wasn’t it? Where was he found, Madam Speaker? I go along to the Barunga Festival and I am standing there and they give apologies for Mr Ah Kit. ‘Oh, that’s funny’, I thought, ‘It was on my agenda that he was going to be here’. And where was he? Asleep under a tree. Got tired. Went to a wedding the night before, had to have a sleep on the way. Missed the whole exercise. So don’t talk to me about electorate issues. If the member for Arnhem wants to raise those things, I will take him on any day.
I will leave it there because I know I am upsetting them. But I would like the minister to place on the record tonight, because the people in the Daly electorate, both at the Five Mile and Dillinya, are waiting for succinct answers as to their futures, and the futures of all of the people who have needs in the service delivery of these unique facilities that have, in one case, a very long and successful record, and in another case, are innovating. They are the kinds of facilities and programs that should be at least tried and supported to see if they have the relevant outcomes that we are all looking for. I will leave it at that, Madam Speaker.
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Leader of the Opposition, that is a great contribution.
Madam Speaker, I just wanted to make some comments in regards to the member for Daly.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can I ask you to make your comments also relevant to the statement. It is getting late.
Mr AH KIT: It is in regards to the health. I am making a couple of comments in regard to my responsibilities as Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs. I have followed the Dillinya concerns and I interjected to the member for Daly about the situation of funding, or lack of funding, with Dillinya. I understand - and the minister can explain this - but they have not put in an application and they are not incorporated. Now, this is another one of your doings when you were in government, that you fund something just for the year and that Anglicare helped out, and that is fine. That is fine, Anglicare helped out. I have no problems in supporting alcohol rehabilitation programs that are working really well. But, we have a local member who understood from the very beginning that they needed to be incorporated, Anglicare helped out. In 12 months time they are still not incorporated, and it is not a business of this government to start funding unincorporated organisations.
The member for Daly is trying to say that I am against these projects. He is wrong, and he is trying to get it recorded in Hansard so he can send that off to pick up some brownie points at Dillinya and wherever else, because he certainly has the time to visit some of these smaller places he did not in the past. But the situation is one where he, for 12 months, ignored providing assistance to that particular community in terms of its incorporation, so that they could apply in their own right for recurrent funding and further funding. The problem rests with him as a lazy local member.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be able to respond to many of the strange things which have been brought up tonight in relation to this statement. I will start with the things which we have just been talking about. The member for Nelson and the member for Victoria River …
Mr Ah Kit: Daly.
Mrs AAGAARD: Daly. Sorry, my apologies. They both brought up the issue of the Five Mile alcohol and drug service. This service has a service agreement with my department. The department, as part of that service agreement, does a normal review. At the moment, there is a review going on of that service but there is no intention to withdraw funding. I have something here from my department that says: ‘It is not intended that the funding would be withdrawn. It is merely that there is a review on of the service’. So, any kind of reports to the extent that there was going to be a withdrawal of funding are very odd indeed and I do not know where they have come from, certainly not from my department.
In relation to Dillinya …
Mr Baldwin: Can you clarify and guarantee?
Mrs AAGAARD: That is a report from my department, Madam Speaker.
Mr Baldwin: No, you. You are the minister. Guarantee.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, I do not have - unlike the previous government, we are at arm’s length from the direct funding of non-government organisations. This fits in with the priorities of the department. The department is saying that there is no intention to withdraw funding.
With the second service, neither I, nor my department, has received any submission for funding. We do not just provide cheques just like this. We do not just write cheques and say, ‘Yes, I am sure you are a great service’. We do not do that on this side of the House. We actually wait for someone to send us a submission, and then it is considered by the department and then, in the normal state of priorities, is agreed to or not agreed to. What I am saying is, if this organisation wishes to receive funding, they need to do the normal thing which is to approach the department for funding.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Daly! It is very hard to hear the minister.
Mrs AAGAARD: The member for Nelson brought up issues in relation to Palmerston. I would just like to do a bit of backgrounding on the Palmerston so-called After Hours Medical Service. This was, in fact, described by my department as a trial. As part of this trial there was a review process. It was never considered to be a permanent service. It was always meant to be a trial with a review at the end of it.
Mr Henderson: In the lead-up to the election.
Mrs AAGAARD: Yes, it was introduced in the lead-up to the election.
Mr Wood: Where is the trial found in Hansard? I cannot find any record of a trial anywhere.
Mrs AAGAARD: My department has advised me that there was a trial. All documentation to me has indicated there was a trial and the review was part of the trial. Because I became the minister for health in the meantime, naturally the review came to me. The key finding of this was that the GPs who run the service - the GPs, not the government, not the department - said this was an unviable service; this service was not required. They did not want to continue the service. However, they said if the service was to continue it was going to cost around $900 000 to continue the service from the hours between 10 pm and 8 am. This is not a sustainable position for this government, given that there was actually no funding put in the budget by the previous government for this trial.
So that is just one issue that I would just like to deal with. I would also like to say that this service has been described as some kind of emergency service. This was never the case. This an ordinary GP service. People in emergency situations still need to go to the Royal Darwin Hospital. To go to a GP when you are in a serious situation puts your own life at risk. This is a very foolish thing to do. As part of the discontinuation of the trial at this medical centre, what we did was, we put in place extra shifts of the ambulance services. One of the significant problems in relation to health services in the Northern Territory, particularly in Darwin, Palmerston and the rural areas, is the poor ambulance services that we were left. One of our major commitments is to improve the ambulance services in these areas. So what we did immediately on finding out about this pathetic situation was we increased the shifts in the Darwin area so that in fact the Palmerston rural area ambulances were able to actually stay in the Palmerston rural area. They were not being continually called into Darwin. We have had a very good response from St John Ambulance on this, that, in fact, it has alleviated the problem significantly and there have been no reasons for ambulances to come into Darwin unnecessarily. I am happy to say that at the beginning of the next financial year these services will be further increased.
When we announced the discontinuation of this service we also talked about reviewing the whole area of services in the rural area which is currently happening. One of the things which I am very happy to announce tonight is that in the Humpty Doo area we will be establishing a voluntary ambulance service, similar to the one at Adelaide River and Batchelor, which will start on the first of July. In fact today, there have been discussions with various government organisations to locate a suitable government building for this service, possibly a school in the Humpty Doo area. When I know the exact details of this I will be happy to pass these on to the member for Nelson.
I would like to thank the member for Karama for many of the comments she made on the non-government sector. I especially share her concerns about the types of funding arrangements that have existed in the past. I know that she has a real commitment to the non-government sector, especially to disability issues and I am very grateful for her continued support.
The member for Port Darwin made a few very strange accusations about me. In particular, she made accusations in relation to my accessibility. I think this is very funny actually. There is this whole picture being painted of me as this inaccessible person. In fact, I have been told that I am the most accessible health minister that has ever existed in the Northern Territory. I have been to so many public functions and I never see any of you. The member for Drysdale is non-existent at any public functions of the non-government sector. I have seen him at one function in Palmerston - one function in Palmerston.
I have also seen several hundred people during this time. I must say that the other comment I have been getting from people is that the previous minister never went anywhere. I have actually been to organisations of the non-government sector where they have never had even so much as a contact with the minister’s office because even an advisor would not see them. I have visited the premises of these places and they are saying thank you very much for coming. I think there must have been some kind of emphasis on the much larger non-government sector organisations because there is a whole raft of smaller organisations which have never seen a minister for health in the whole time of the Northern Territory. I might add too, there are a few areas of the department, even in the Palmerston area, which have never seen the minister for health because I visited them last week.
I would like to make some comments on the hospice. There is a working party that is looking into this and I will make a report on that when I have further information to give to the House. It seemed to be fairly pointless to comment on every single thing that is happening in this very big portfolio. But certainly the hospice, the palliative care, is very important and there is a working party; we are expecting some quite considerable plans on that fairly soon.
There have been a lot of comments made tonight about the Alice Springs Hospital which I must say I find just completely amazing. The Alice Springs Hospital did not change at all on 18 August. I became the minister on 27 August and then in the third week of September, I was advised by my department of significant crisis situations in Alice Springs Hospital. I immediately endorsed an authorised review of the Alice Springs Hospital by a very senior health administrator, Mr John Mulligan, who is also the Vice-President of the Australian Health Care Council, I believe. A very, very senior person. He came to Alice Springs, he did a review and then I received the results of the review in October which we immediately began to implement and so, Madam Speaker, there is in fact a turn around already in the Alice Springs Hospital.
A number of the allegations made tonight are very sad indeed. Certainly things like nurses and nurse retention rates are very problematic. They are for all hospitals throughout Australia. But we have made a concerted effort as I noted this morning in my report to the House on how we were going to turn this around and there has already been a big increase in the numbers of nurses in the hospital. And, I expect there to be significant changes in the level of services in this hospital within this year.
The member for Barkly made particular comments in relation to haemodialysis. It is going to be a very significant thing for the people of the Barkly when this service is introduced. Also in terms of the whole mapping exercise on renal dialysis for the Northern Territory, we will for once have some idea of where we need to be putting services, instead of doing this strange ad hoc business where people keep writing in and saying: ‘We need something here, we need something there’. We need to have a plan of what is going to happen with renal services in the Northern Territory, and that is what we are doing.
I would like to pick up particularly on the comments by the member for Greatorex regarding itinerants in the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital. I am afraid these comments are completely untrue. There was apparently during the construction phase of the private wing of the hospital, one afternoon, one person wandered into the unfinished building and was escorted out by some staff.
Mr McAdam: It was an inspection.
Mrs AAGAARD: Yes, perhaps it was an inspection, member for Barkly. There have been no cases of itinerants living in the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital. In relation to the Alice Springs private wing, there have been a lot of very odd comments made on this as well. When this was first mooted, the previous government had a Memorandum of Understanding with the Sisters of Charity, and this fell through. This fell through because 15 beds is not a viable service for a private hospital. In the meantime, the former minister for health decided to put in expressions of interest for further service operators for this private wing of the hospital. I understand from my department that he personally approached three providers. These three providers were then asked to submit expressions of interest to tender for the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital. None of them submitted a tender, not even one. In fact, what I got back from my department was, that these people said, if the minister approached them personally, they expected something called a sweetener, an incentive for them to come here. But there wasn’t anything like that. So, there was one tenderer but the tenderer was not suitable and at this stage we do not have anyone to fill that particular contract.
However, I have asked my department to prepare a business analysis of what we might be able to do to attract a provider for the private wing of the hospital. But I would have to say that our key priority is getting the Alice Springs Hospital right before we start working on that. And although that will be a medium term plan, you would have to say the turning around of the Alice Springs Hospital is far more important.
As a general comment, I was very curious about the comments made about caucus meetings which are of course confidential meetings. I have been to every caucus meeting of the parliamentary Labor Party. You may be interested to know that when you are elected as a minister, you are actually elected by your caucus colleagues. That means that I have the support of my caucus colleagues, and there have been no conversations, as suggested by members opposite, that there have been problems in my portfolio. The problems that exist in my portfolio are totally because of the poor management by the CLP over the past few years.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
A few weeks ago, the Chief Minister and I were honoured to be involved in the Darwin premiere of the film Rabbit-Proof Fence along with senior members of Darwin’s stolen generation. It is an extraordinary film about a long episode in Australia’s history. I do not mind admitting that I was one of many people watching the film that night who was moved to tears. As well as being a story that has affected many indigenous Australians, it is also an intensely local one for the people of Darwin. This town was the site of both the Kahlin compound and the Retta Dixon home. Many Darwin Aboriginal families also have strong connections to Garden Point, Croker Island, the Pine Creek home, Emerald River and Roper River, not to mention the Bungalow and St Philips in Alice Springs.
It is a tragic history that has affected all indigenous Australians, but one that so many people seem incapable of listening to. These people, many of whom are very powerful in this nation, deny Australia’s past. They refuse to read the history books; they wish to censor reality. They say a picture tells a story of a thousand words. On that night, we saw a picture that tells the truth of thousands of lies. It is the true story of three amazingly brave girls who were stolen from their families in the Jigalong community and taken to the Moore River Native Settlement. It is the true story of them walking 2400 km home to their people. But there are some other stories of the film that are also stories of commitment to the truth.
The first story is that of Doris Pilkington Garimara, the author of Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence on which the film is based. Like her mother, whose story she tells, she was stolen and taken to Moore River and subsequently removed from her love and care. Before she became a writer, she was the first from the mission she lived in to enrol in nursing. What we saw that night is the passion of the artist and the artist’s desire that the truth be told.
The second story is of Tianna, Laura and Everlyn, the three young Aboriginal girls in the lead roles in Rabbit-Proof Fence. These girls had no experience of acting before; indeed I understand Everlyn had never even been to the movies. As young representatives of Aboriginal people, the three girls tell another truth: the capacity of our kids to achieve extraordinary things. In this case, as actors appearing alongside such other great Aboriginal actors as David Gulpilil, Ningali Lawford, Deborah Mailman and others, these girls demonstrated a talent of which we can all be enormously proud.
The third story is that of the film maker Phillip Noyce. Back in the days when he hung around the Film Makers Co-Operative in Sydney in the late 1960s, I doubt if he imagined he would one day shoot two road movies about Aboriginal people that would tell two different kinds of truth. The first, Back Roads, starred Gary Foley and was a bitter look at Australian racism. Rabbit-Proof Fence is no less about racism, but 30 years on gives us a story of hope and resistance rather than despair. And finally to the rest of the cast, crew and backers of Rabbit-Proof Fence, their collective commitment to the kinds of truth I have been talking about tonight shines through the work of all of them.
There has never been in the history of Australian film making an international hit film depicting Aboriginal people. It is as if the box office was a kind of terra nullius, a place where the depiction of the lives of our people are denied access. It makes you wonder what the value of truth is. Let us hope that Rabbit-Proof Fence changes that once and for all.
You will remember that one of the first moves by the Martin Labor government was to move a motion of apology in this Chamber to the stolen generations. On that day, I spoke of my mother’s experience of this terrible policy of former governments. Other Aboriginal members on this side of the House had other experiences they recounted to the Assembly. It was a day that was both sad and happy; sadness for the lives we commemorated, happiness for the fact that this parliament was finally acknowledging the history of the stolen generations.
At the premiere of Rabbit-Proof Fence, the Chief Minister remarked that it was a confronting film in that it opened wounds for those members of the stolen generation who saw it, as well as being an eye-opener for many in the rest of the community. She quite rightly said that we are here at ground zero in the cultural debate to which this film contributes. I wish I had thought of this way of describing it myself because it is an accurate way of looking at the whole issue.
Perhaps the hardest thing to get hold of in the context of the stolen generation history is that it is a history that is constructed of thousands of individual stories. It is a history that, even since the Human Rights Commission Stolen Generation Inquiry, is still largely untold. Outside of the indigenous families that it affected there is still great ignorance. The film Rabbit-Proof Fence tells three of those thousands of individual stories. I would urge all members of the Assembly who have not seen it to get along and watch it. I also urge other Territorians to go and see it.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to pay tribute tonight to some outstanding Territorians who have recently departed.
I refer first of all to Kurt Gerhardt Johannsen. Kurt Johannsen was truly a son of the Red Centre. He was born at Deep Well Station south of Alice Springs on 11 January 1915 and he lived the greater part of his life and did most of his work in the Centre, and most of what we remember about him are things that belong to the Centre. More than anything else, Kurt Johannsen was a man of an unshakeable faith in his own judgment and capabilities. His certainty of achieving his aims was backed with an inventiveness that drove him with an energy that often left other people flagging, but carried him on despite on many occasions an almost total lack of finance. Who in this day and age would fly to Darwin to bid for a very large truck without even enough money to get home? Scarce thought they were, there were others who, even then, were prepared to stand by him; others who saw his vision and recognised his inventiveness and did what they could to help.
On the other hand, Kurt was a trusting sort of person. He could never imagine, except when it was too late and he was left to pick up the pieces, that everyone else in the world did not have similar ideas about business principles and integrity as he did.
Kurt Johannsen’s enduring contribution to the Centre, more importantly to the transport industry and indeed to Australia, was to demonstrate by example the feasibility and potential of the road train. He did not invent road trains and he never claimed to have invented road trains, nor did he claim to invent the self-tracking trailer, but we all know of the huge work that he did and the effect he had on the road transport industry.
Whatever the case, Kurt certainly saw his destiny early in life. Sometime around 1958 his son, Lindsay, came across a number of drawings that Kurt had done in 1932, as far back as that, when he was 17 years of age. They were sketches of a road train, something we might now call conceptual drawings, and showed a prime mover hauling four ‘B’ trailers. Each trailer had a bogey-axle situated well forward of the rear connecting turntable, the resulting throw-out giving a respectable self-tracking capability. Each of the trailers had on it what appeared to be a cattle enclosure - the start of what we now know as the road train.
Kurt Johannsen went on to make his self-tracking road trains. They were constructed from left-over military bits and pieces - wheels from these welded on to home-made axles, springs from those doubled up to take the loading, short trays cut and joined to make them a useable length. Then he put bridge-section cattle crates on his trailers to make them strong enough for the job ahead. And his self-tracking road trains worked on some of the roughest, toughest tracks in Australia. And if the going was impossible, he simply used to blaze new tracks through the bush and across sandy creeks. Some of the tracks he cut subsequently became the main road for the area.
One day in 1956, he unexpectedly received in the mail a heavily laden envelope from the USA. In it were some rather remarkable documents. Diagrams and photographs of a giant self-tracking snow-train being constructed by LeTourneau for service in the Arctic. Now, here was Kurt’s proudest moment, that a giant like LeTourneau could even know, let alone appreciate, what Kurt, without publicity or fanfare, and in his own modest Central Australian backwater, was striving to achieve. It was all the more impressive when you realise that Kurt Johannsen did what he did without the benefit of any formal education. His schooling finished when he passed his grade 3 exams and had to start work to help support his family at the age of 15.
However, although we remember Kurt Johannsen very much for his road trains and his business of transporting cattle, it was not his only passion. He had been actively involved in mining, with his father, at first, and later on his own account. When the cattle transport business dwindled, he took crates off old Bertha - and might I add that old Bertha is now in the Road Transport Hall of Fame in Alice Springs - off Wog and the trailers and used the road trains to haul 60 tonne loads of copper ore from his mine at Jervois Range to Mt Isa, or to carry salt from his salt pan lease to the oil rigs at Mereenie.
There had been contract haulage too. Seven trailer road trains loaded with drums into Darwin, locomotives and rolling stock from the Top End railways into Alice, copper concentrates from Tennant Creek to the railway at Alice. Three trips a week the drivers had to do when the Peko mine was busy - Co-Ords big Fodens, the Baldock Leylands, and old Bertha. In those days, old Bertha had 11.6 diffs and could only do 40 km per hour.
In the mid-1960s, the cattle hauling business picked up again. The two road trains that had survived from the earlier days had their crates replaced and became fully employed. By this time, however, maintenance on the prime movers was becoming a problem as they were getting older, and so, too was Kurt. In 1967, he had a heart scare and his doctor told him to close the business and retire. But of course, his early retirement did not last too long. In the 1970s, he was mining tungsten north-east of Alice Springs in partnership with his son, Lindsay. It was a predictable arrangement. Lindsay had found a half decent prospect and Kurt had a yard full of mining and crushing machinery. Kurt retired a little more graciously after they sold the mine in 1978.
During the Second World War - and this is where Kurt Johannsen is remembered by a lot of people - fuel was severely limited, though coke-burning gas producers enabled some people to overcome this shortage. In Central Australia, wood was free and plentiful, so Kurt Johannsen applied his inventiveness to build a better gas producer for his Studebaker President utility, one that could burn wood instead of coke.
By the time he retired, he had a number of ideas on how he could refine the process and make it more efficient. He made himself a new one, a ‘clip-on’ unit to mount on the back of his big left hand drive Dodge station wagon, now also on display in the Road Transport Hall of Fame. To complement this, Kurt designed a two double bedroom plus living area fold away camper to go on its roof. The idea was to go touring around Australia with Daphne Palmer, his partner.
After starting the car on petrol, they would set off down the road, and a few kilometres later, when the gas producer came up to speed, he would shift his foot across to the other accelerator pedal and run the car on wood gas, the carbon monoxide. Petrol costs for a 1000 km trips were often less than $10. In what was becoming an enduring relationship, he and Daphne collaborated on writing his book, A Son of the Red Centre. When the publishers rejected it, Kurt went ahead and published it himself, then used their touring to promote the book. The publishers must be kicking themselves, because in Australia, they often regard 5000 copies to be a best seller. To date, Kurt’s book has sold something in the order of 18 000 copies.
While his physical energy was starting to diminish, his inventive, mental process was getting into overdrive. During this time, his main project was an automatic emergency braking system that would bring a runaway truck, such as those we often see running down hills, to a standstill safely, before the situation got out of control. Later he would spend more time on the processes of fuel efficiency.
Kurt Johannsen was an inventor. If he had been born today and lived in this day and age, I cannot imaging the type of things he would come up with, but the inventions that he produced in the early days were quite remarkable. It is just hard to imagine someone coming up with the ideas he had.
Kurt’s first wife was Kathleen Rowell, and they had three children, Lindsay, David and Peter. David still lives in Alice Springs and runs Mitre 10, Peter lives in Adelaide and Lindsay is out bush on his father’s mining leases at Jervois Range. Kathleen and Kurt separated and some time later he married Daphne Hillam. Following several happy years together, they too went their different ways and had no children. But his third wife - so Kurt was certainly a man of character - was Elsie Dixon Collins. They had two children, Paula, his only daughter, and Kurt Junior. Paula lives in Adelaide and Kurt Junior lives in Alice Springs. All the children are happily married, and Kurt, of course, had lots of grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Unfortunately, Kurt’s stamina did begin to fade, and it was during this latter part of his life he developed troubles with his waterworks, a blockage of some sort - and this just is typical of the man. The doctors were not too sure of what the problem was, and decided that in the fullness of time they might do some exploratory surgery. ‘Fullness’ was the operative word here; Kurt was getting desperate. One day when Daphne was out shopping, he took some plastic tube from his oxygen supply equipment, and in a fashion typical of the man, sort of fixed things up for himself. By the time Daphne returned from her shopping, Kurt was sitting on the little patio out the back looking very pleased with himself, and feeling a great deal more comfortable. This led to a certain amount of notoriety when he was admitted to Daws Road Repatriation Hospital. The doctors wanted to see his apparatus and what he had actually done to cure his problem.
Kurt passed away on Tuesday morning, 22 January, while he was having breakfast. He was 87. His going was quick and free of pain, for which his family are eternally grateful, and his beloved Daphne was by his side.
I extend my condolences to his four sons, Peter, Lindsay, David, and Kurt, and Paula, his daughter, their families, their many grandchildren, great grandchildren and also his three sisters, Mona Byrnes, Trudi Hayes and Myrtle Noske, who all now reside in Alice Springs. Kurt Johannsen was a true Territorian and an outstanding Centralian.
I also pay tribute to Edward (Ted) - or as he was known - ‘Snooky’ Hampton, who passed away on 18 December 2001. Many of us know Ted Hampton. He devoted so much time to his family, his seven children, 18 grandchildren and, of course, to his wife, Fay, before she passed away. Ted was born the 9th son of Tim and Sara Hampton in 1938, at Garden Station. From a young age, he attended St Francis House, based in Semaphore in South Australia, where he established many life long friendships. As a young man, he loved all sorts of sports - basketball, darts, and he loved fishing most of all, and used to love to brag of the big ones that got away, and of the little ones he brought home.
To his family, he was an adventurer who loved Central Australia, and knew it like the back of his hand. He had the ability to see the humorous side of things and always had a tale to tell. He married a local ex-St Mary’s girl and together they supported each other in many of Ted’s ventures. He worked in many jobs in the area. He started work as an apprentice in carpentry; he went on to work as a surveyor for the Lands and Survey Department; he worked for the CES for 12 years; and then worked to establish the Aboriginal Health Worker Training Unit. His vision became very much for Aboriginal people to become economically independent.
Ted went to Canada to represent Aboriginal business interests at the first World Indigenous Business Congress. He stood for two Northern Territory Legislative Assembly elections; had been a Justice of the Peace for 20 years and served on many Aboriginal organisations, both locally and in South Australia. He was instrumental in the publishing of the South Australian book, Survival in Our Own Land; his brother, Ken, was one of the authors. He went on to establish Aboriginal Literature Development Assistance Association, and in 2000 he was named Regional Centralian of the Year for his contribution to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal organisations over the past 20 years. His last employment position he held was as a case worker with the stolen generations.
He was also awarded a grant under the Senior Territorians program, and he purchased a computer through Batchelor College and spent many hours researching and writing his and his wife’s genealogies and his biography. He was a gifted poet and has left behind many beautiful poems for his family to treasure.
Ted Hampton was a father, grandfather, brother friend and husband. He has left an enormous gap in his family. I extend my condolences to all his children and their family.
Very briefly, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to advise members of the House of the passing of David Underhill. I know some of the members will remember David as the sessional Hansard sub-editor from 1995 until his rather serious illness in 2001. He had a long and distinguished career in journalism, both in Australia and overseas, and brought with him a great deal of editorial expertise which he used, might I add, to enhance the standard of our Parliamentary Record. Over a period of time he established a close working relationship with many of the officers of the Legislative Assembly.
While fighting the illness to which he finally succumbed, he kept in close contact with the department and was, from time to time, able to do editing on a consultancy basis. David is survived by his two children. He always enjoyed himself. You might remember him at the end-of-year functions. He was a connoisseur of Scotch whiskey, established a reputation as raconteur, he had a wealth of entertaining anecdotes and humorous stories about members’ contributions to debate in this House. He will be fondly remembered by former members and officers of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, throughout the Territory there are many examples of people contributing unselfishly to their communities, the work involved that is done in the background. The wider community is not aware of their efforts. This evening I would like to pay tribute to some of these people, particularly those involved in the Australian Street Circuit Go-Kart Grand Prix held annually in Tennant Creek. This event is of great importance to Tennant Creek, attracting many of the best drivers in Australia and from overseas. It has developed into a major tourism drawcard, providing the community with economic benefits. With an 11-year history, the Grand Prix is the longest standing event of its kind in Australia and is now recognised as the premium street circuit Go-Karting event in the country.
Building up the event to this level is the result of the tremendous work put in, year after year, by a very dedicated group of people to whom I would now like to pay tribute.
Firstly, I pay tribute to Richard Dodd of Prospect Business Machines and Tony and June Civitarese of T and J Contractors. Every year, these local business people have contributed time and dollars to all aspects of the Grand Prix. It is impossible to hold such events as this without efforts of people like Richard, Tony and June, and I thank them for their dedication and contributions to Tennant Creek and, indeed, the Barkly.
I pay tribute to Murray Henderson of Mozza Constructions. Each year, Murray embarks on a program to ensure that the track preparation, maintenance and safety is above board and I pay tribute to Murray. I also pay tribute to Jack Gannon of Barkly Engineering and Welding. Jack is President of the Tennant Creek Go-Kart Club and always gives the Grand Prix his full support, and provides whatever assistance he can.
Thanks to Peter Davenport of Tennant Security Services and Barry Harker of Tennant Creek Town Council. Peter and Barry have provided excellent commentary each year. Peter has also been involved with events run each year in association with the Grand Prix such as Miss Grand Prix. Barry works each year on the grid coordinating race starts. Communications for the event is being provided by Andy Sutherland of Territory Communications. Congratulations to Andy on a job consistently well done.
I would now like to pay a special tribute to the team of over 60 volunteers who participate each year in making this event what it is. Without these unsung heroes, there would be no event. Of the many drivers involved in the event, I pay tribute to the local driver Tarmo Koivumaki of T and J Mechanical Repairs. As well as participating in the event himself, Tarmo works tirelessly on behalf of all drivers towards the smooth running of the event. An event such as the Grand Prix always needs someone to take care of the administrative details. Clarissa Burgen of ATSIC has taken on this task over the past few years and I thank Clarissa for her efforts and, indeed, ATSIC for their efforts in a role that can not go unrecognised. Due to impending motherhood, Clarissa cannot be involved in this year’s Grand Prix, and I take this opportunity on behalf of everyone in Tennant Creek to wish her well for the future.
Another person I pay tribute to is Skimbo Turnbull of Tennant Creek Security. Skimbo has done a tremendous job in ensuring an incident-free event, both the races and associated social events. Finally, with respect to past events, I recognise the contribution made by Arthur Hill, who used to work for PAWA, and members of the Tennant Creek Town Council. These organisations consistently provide assistance to facilitate the holding of this event. I also thank NT Major Events for their generous funding and the Tennant Creek Hotel for being the second major sponsor.
I also thank people who have been involved in getting the event organised this year. An enormous amount of work has been involved in planning, organising, and securing funding. To all members of the committee: Michael Dougall and Richard Pare, Clarissa Burgen, Richard Dodd, Hayley Dodd, Bev Kozlowski, Ian Gray, Tony Civitarese, Bob Torrilla, Paul Sawyer, Arthur Hill, Glen Bennett, Nigel Skelton, Peter Davenport, Lisa Marshall and Julie Bright, I give my sincere thanks for your efforts. I pay special tribute to Michael Dougall, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tennant Creek Town Council, who has worked as a Committee Chairman; to Ian Gray for taking on the role of Event Manager and Treasurer; Paul Sawyer, from my office, has also been assisting in a secretarial capacity; and Hayley Dodd for assuming the administrative role left by Clarissa Burgen.
Whilst specifically mentioning these people, all the members of the committee have taken on various subcommittee roles. I thank them all and wish them all the best in the heavy workload ahead of them. With only possibly ten weeks to go until the event, they are faced with a daunting task, but based on previous years, I am confident that this year will prove to be the best yet.
I would like to sincerely thank the management and directors of Tennant Creek Memorial Club for agreeing to act as the second major sponsor of this year’s event. In particular, Rob Bright deserves a special thanks. Finally, to the Chief Minister, her Chief of Staff, Dennis Bree and Charlie Phillips, my sincere thanks. You should be accorded a special recognition for the tremendous amount of work that you have all put in over the last few weeks in making funds available to ensure that the Grand Prix continues. Thanks also to Paul Cattermole of NT Major Events for his support.
I have addressed this issue tonight because it is another example of the unselfish inspirational attitude of people in Tennant Creek, who take on amazing amounts of work for no other reason other than to benefit their community and their Territory. I applaud them all.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to place on the record something that I feel may be of interest to the government. From time to time, I go through my file to check up on promises that were made to the good folk in the Palmerston area during the election. Those promises are alive and well, and there is an expectation of their fulfilment and some response to them. Rather than just wait for a response, I am at work to perhaps construct something that may be of interest to the Labor government in being able to fulfil one of their very important promises and one that would perhaps, under normal circumstances, be a little difficult to deliver.
In the heat of the moment, in the heat of the battle of the campaign, promised $2m to the Palmerston Magpies Football Club. At the time, it may have seemed like a good idea but it caused other codes in Palmerston, and in the northern suburbs, to wonder why would one particular club receive that amount of funding. I never made such a promise and, really, it was a bit of a concern for other codes, albeit as a committee member of the Palmerston Magpies, privately I think it is okay. However, I think there are some challenges there particularly for clubs in Palmerston like the Raiders who do not have a home ground; a very similar situation but did not have the same profile as the Magpies.
What I would suggest is an arrangement that is on foot at the moment where a relationship has been formed between the Palmerston Magpies Football Club and the Northern Territory University Palmerston Campus. As members would probably be fully aware, the Palmerston Campus of the Northern Territory University has two very good playing fields currently not utilised. They would be an ideal location for the Palmerston Magpies Football Club and other homeless codes in Palmerston such as the Palmerston Raiders. I have spoken to the Northern Territory University and they are very interested to develop a proposal further.
In the interests of the promise which is still on the books – the $2m - I would suggest a way of acquitting this in a way that may be less painful for the Territory government would be to approach the Northern Territory University to find a way to establish facilities on these grounds which would then be of beneficial use to the Palmerston Magpies Football Club and the Palmerston Raiders. That way we are assisting the university and raising their profile in the community plus providing very important facilities for Palmerston sporting codes which are servicing the greater need of developing young talent in Palmerston, particularly young lads. I would also add these comments in greater detail in writing but I take this opportunity to place it on the Parliamentary Record.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to express my gratitude to the staff of Karama Public Library for their hard work. Since becoming the member for Karama, it has been a pleasure working with the Northern Territory Public Library Service to ensure the ongoing health and future of Karama Public Library. In that regard, I have had it confirmed that lease renewal is moving ahead and that is great news for the staff of the library. That library has not been renovated in something like ten years and is well in need of a lick of paint and some new carpet.
I attended a meeting of the library assistants and technicians of the Top End. I was their key note speaker at their annual Christmas function on 25 November last year. At this gathering I was able to hear of the key concerns confronting the Northern Territory Library Service and discuss innovative models that are occurring elsewhere in Australia that librarians are very keen on up here. The Tasmanian Library Service was the one pointed out to me as being the best practice model of library services in Australia. It is a subject that I have had subsequent discussions about at ministerial level and ministerial officer level.
What really brought home to me the popularity of the Karama Public Library Service was in April last year when I attended the 10th birthday celebrations of the Karama Public Library. I note that the late Lord Mayor, George Brown, officiated at that function. There were literally hundreds of my constituents packing out the library on that occasion. Parents and children, and grandparents, all there to express their absolute admiration of the service that the local public library provides to our community. The library offers a great selection of novels, biographies, videos, e-mail and web surfing. There are books and magazines in languages other than English; these include Vietnamese, Chinese and Indonesian.
In the month of October last year, 6010 people visited the library over the 27 days that library was open. The library received 1205 inquiries from complex to simple subject matters and held 13 special event programs which were attended by 381 people. It recorded 4608 loans which covered books, periodicals, CDs, DVDs, CD-ROMs, videos, toys and games. Children are well catered for at Karama Public Library with children’s story books. They have pre-school story time every Tuesday and Thursday at 10 am and bed time stories every second Thursday from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm. It may not come as much of a surprise to most of you that the most popular children’s book on loan is Harry Potter. The library has wheelchair access, enhanced access computer terminals, a community notice board, large print books and spoken word tapes.
This library is one of four public library services that are inter-woven with administrative support provided at Casuarina Public Library. There are no joining fees and lending and information services are free. I congratulate the chief librarian, Viki Schmielewski for her great leadership at, and enthusiasm for, Karama Public Library. I congratulate the two full time and three part time staff and day-to-day specialist staff at the library for the terrific service they are providing there. I note that the Karama Public Library has just implemented a Literacy Week Program that is operating in our community. Its aim and intention is to promote learning and reading within our community. As the local member, I am incredibly proud of the work that the library staff do, of the accessibility to the community of the library and I certainly pledge as a local member, to pursue the improvement and enhancement of our library service.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to discuss a number of matters in the area of women’s issues or women’s policy. Firstly, I will begin with the axing last week, announced by the Territory’s first woman Chief Minister, of the Business Women’s Consultative Council, the BWCC. Members will recall that I foreshadowed that times ahead may be tough for a variety of women’s organisations when, in November last year, I highlighted that $4.6m was slashed from the Chief Minister’s departmental budget.
As a former convenor of the Women’s Advisory Council, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware of the role the BWCC had to and for government. What the abolition of the BWCC means for women around the Territory is that women in business will no longer have a direct link with government. The BWCC was established over many years by the former CLP government and I am very proud of the former government’s achievements in a number of women’s areas. Some think it is ironic that a CLP government was cutting edge in some of its initiatives. It sits happily with me and, indeed, I am very proud of the initiatives that former governments announced over a number of years. The fact that this new government comes in and systematically dismantles some very good initiatives is distressing not only to me but to a number of women who have contacted me over the past few days.
In light of the Chief Minister’s disregard for her own advisory group on women in business, women in the Territory have every reason to think that the Chief Minister is arrogant in assuming that she does not need the advice of the BWCC. That is a sad indictment on this Chief Minster.
To happier matters, I also want to discuss the Women’s Advisory Council’s Alicia Johnson Memorial Lecture. As members are no doubt aware, this lecture series commenced in 1991 and was named to honour a young woman, Alicia Johnson. Alicia worked with the Australian Legal Aid Office, as it was then, and later at the Northern Territory University. She was a member of the Domestic Violence Task Force, a representative on the NT Law Reform Committee and a member of the Family Planning Association. She was committed to working for and with disadvantaged youth and women and in particular women who were the victims of sexual assaults. This lecture series was created to remember Alicia and when the last lecture was delivered by Maxine McKew, it was the 11th in the series. Most years, Alicia’s family and in particular her parents, Warren and Gillian Johnson travelled to Darwin from Melbourne to be in attendance at the lecture. The 10th anniversary lecture was a particularly moving occasion for them and indeed most of those present, including myself, on that remarkable night. Dr Jocelyn Scutt was the guest lecturer.
The quality of this lecture series has been outstanding on any analysis, and guest lecturers over the years have included to name but a few, Justice Elizabeth Evatt, Professor Hilary Charlesworth, Dr Jocelyn Scutt and the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, Alasdair Nicholson. In anyone’s language and by any measure, this series has been exceptional in terms of the quality of the guest lecturers, the subject matter and the audience attracted to each lecture which has continued to grow over the years. The lectures have promoted awareness of legal, social and human rights amongst the wider community, as well as commemorating the life of Alicia Johnston. It was something that the Women’s Advisory Council did well and was always supported by the former government, a fact of which I am very proud.
Having outlined something of the lecture’s history, words, of course, could barely express my shock and outrage when I heard of the Women’s Advisory Council’s decision to dispense with the lecture series. In response to information I received, I wrote to the Chief Minister in November of last year and asked her to do whatever she could to rescue the lecture series and I expressed the view that the Women’s Advisory Council’s decision was bizarre and extraordinary. I also undertook in my letter to the Chief Minister to refrain from making any public announcement whilst she would have the time to see what she could do to remedy the situation. Unfortunately, I did not hear from the Chief Minister for some time, but before I did, I received a number of e-mails predominantly from women members of the Labor Party who had, it seemed, also discovered the council’s decision. Authors of the e-mails were strident in their support of the lecture series, and essentially undertook, as I understood it, to do whatever they could to ensure that the lecture series continued.
A commitment was subsequently given by the Chief Minister that ensured that the future of this lecture series is secure. I would like to thank all of the women who sent me those e-mails, and I thank very sincerely the Chief Minister for her government’s commitment. It is with some pride that I can indicate that the opposition provides the same commitment in the event that we return to government after the next election. This is an important indication because it means that both political parties in the Northern Territory now agree that this outstanding lecture series will continue whichever party is in government, hence its future is guaranteed. The fact that this has bipartisan agreement is something of a victory for all of those, including myself, who have been very strong supporters of this outstanding and important lecture series.
It is in the context of these circumstances that I raise the possibility of a review of the Women’s Advisory Council which, I understand, the Chief Minister indicated last week is likely to occur. I should say that given the change of government and given that it does have a propensity and, indeed, an entitlement to review all of the former government’s programs, I fully expected that the council would be on the government’s review or reform agenda. I accept that in light of the change of government, it is probably timely to review the Women’s Advisory Council.
However, by review I do not mean axing, or abolishing, or dismissing. I would hope that given that this government does now plan to, as I understand it, review the council, it would do so with a view to improving, refining or developing. In order to do this, it should widely consult. At this point, of course, it cannot go unmentioned that in this Chamber there are two members who have had extensive experience with the council. Specifically, the member for Port Darwin was the convenor of the council from 1994 to 1996; I was a member of the council from 1997 to 1999, and convenor from 1999 to 2001. We clearly have experience with the council in a very real way, and obviously I think both have an interest in ensuring that any review brings about positive changes and ones that advance the interests of women in the Northern Territory. I note that in contrast, on the other side of the House, it has no member, let alone a former convenor of the council. This is not a criticism. It is simply a statement of fact. The point I make is that given our experience and our interest in this area, I ask that if and when the council is reviewed by this government, that the member for Port Darwin and I be invited to assist with that review and, at the very least, we should be consulted.
Given the Chief Minister’s assurance that she would consult Territorians about a number of issues, we ask that we be consulted on the basis that despite sitting on this side of the House, we are also Territorians and have a very obvious interest and experience in this area. For my own part, it is, I think, fairly well known by women in the ALP, some of whom I like and respect, others of whom are my friends, that I have a strong interest in women’s issues and am not in the business of politicising them. I am ready, willing and able to assist in such a review.
Unless government accepts the need for advice from people like the member for Port Darwin and me, there is a risk that a review will not or cannot be complete and indeed runs a greater risk of being seen as one-sided and ultimately not embraced by all Territory women. If the review is political and ill-informed, then women who are not ALP supporters are unlikely to benefit from it or at least unlikely to support it. That, in my view, is simply a risk not worth taking.
If the Chief Minister and this government is serious about working on women’s issues, and advancing the status of Territory women, and maintaining a Women’s Advisory Council - a concept I strongly support - then it would be practically and politically unwise not to draw upon the resources that already exist. Social policy, specifically women’s policy, is not owned by the Labor Party or indeed any political party. Both parties have much to contribute to this area, and I suspect that there are shared views on a number of issues if not most.
I propose, therefore, that in the event that if and when there is a review of the Women’s Advisory Council, that it be a bipartisan review involving the women in this Chamber as well as some former members of council from both political parties. It could take a number of forms, formal or perhaps even informal initially, but it must be bipartisan and it must draw on the resources that so obviously exist.
I sincerely invite the Chief Minister to take up my request. Failure to do so would, in my view, indicate astonishing arrogance and a propensity to cater for the interests of some and not all Territory women.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, on Saturday, 16 February 2002, it was my pleasure to present, on behalf of this government and the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Kon Vatskalis, a cheque for $2000 to the Tamil Society of the Northern Territory. I presented this cheque to the Tamil Society President, Mr Selvaratnam and Vice-President, Mrs Anita Ramnath, at the Casuarina Cinemas that Saturday afternoon in front of 50 or 60 members of the Tamil Society.
The Tamil Society of the Northern Territory was established to promote knowledge and understanding of Tamil art and culture and to provide cultural, social, sporting and recreational activities for members and others who want to join in. Other objectives of the Tamil Society include fostering and promoting the study and use of the Tamil language, to establish and manage a resource centre with Tamil language books, periodicals, films; to provide counselling and assistance for members; and to encourage social activity. One of these social activities is a screening of Tamil language movies. The cheque was to assist the Tamil Society to screen a series of Tamil movies. The first of those movies was screened that Saturday afternoon at the Casuarina Cinemas, and it was terrific to see families, grandparents, children, people of all ages, coming together in such a happy atmosphere to enjoy a Saturday afternoon at the movies together. I even saw a school friend and play mate of my daughter and her family at the screening. Our kids are both in the same class and their teacher is Mrs Katerina Vlamos. I don’t know whether Mrs Vlamos was born in Greece or if her parents or grandparents were the first to migrate to the Territory. I don’t know if my daughter’s friend, Vaanathy, or her parents were born in Australia or migrated. I do know that Vaanathy and her teacher are proud of their heritage, are proud of their cultures, and freely and happily share their culture with all comers, no matter what continent or island from which their family sprung.
To me, multiculturalism is not just a word; it is an important component of the society I believe in, the type of society my family and I want to live in for all time. The Martin Labor government is pleased to provide financial support to the Territory’s ethnic organisations like the Tamil Society because such events are vital reminders to Territorians like our Tamil community of their unique cultural heritage, and what an amazing and rich cultural heritage it is. I was happy to present the cheque on behalf of the minister, Kon Vatskalis, because this government understands that in a multicultural society like ours, it is important to let all people celebrate their own cultural heritage and creativity. We are happy to support the Tamil Society to screen these movies because we understand that means a great deal to these members of our beautiful Northern Territory community to be able to see films in their first language, or in the first language of their parents.
I stayed and watched some of the movie before leaving for my next engagement; it was a kung fu comedy. I could not understand a word that was said, but I could understand the sense of community, of shared happiness in that room, and I was happy that a small financial support from this government was helping them to make this happen.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, this year, the Chinese New Year started on 12 February. For the following 15 days, Chinese people will celebrate with traditional lion and dragon dancers, family gatherings and reunions, an offering of hong baos, or red packets containing money by elders to the young, among relatives. Tomorrow is the last day of the celebrations and in many countries where the festival is celebrated in full tradition, it is the night for a lantern parade.
Preparations tend to begin a month from the date of the Chinese New Year, when people start buying presents, decorations, food and clothing. A huge clean up gets under way days before the New Year, when Chinese houses are cleaned from top to bottom to sweep away any traces of bad luck, and doors and window panes are given a new coat of paint, usually red. The doors and windows are then decorated with paper cups and couplets with themes such as happiness, wealth and longevity printed on them. The eve of the New Year is perhaps the most exciting part of the event, as anticipation creeps in. Here, traditions and rituals are very carefully observed in everything from food to clothing. Dinner is usually a feast of seafood and dumplings, signifying good wishes. Delicacies include prawns, for liveliness and happiness; dried oysters, for all things good; raw fish; salad, to bring good luck and prosperity; angel hair, an edible hair-like seaweed, to bring prosperity; and dumplings in boiled water, signifying the long lost good wish for a family. It is usual to wear something red, as this colour is meant to ward off evil spirits. Black and white are out, as these are associated with mourning.
After dinner, the families sit up for the night playing cards, board games or watching TV programs dedicated to the occasion. At midnight, the sky is lit up by fireworks. On the day itself, an ancient custom called hong baos, or red packets, are given. This involves married couples giving children and unmarried adults money in red envelopes. The family then begins to say greetings from door to door, first to their relatives, and then their neighbours. The end of New Year is marked by the festival of lanterns, as I said, which is a celebration of singing, dancing and lantern shows.
For us, tomorrow is when the Chung Wah Society Lion dance will bless this Chamber, in a tradition that has been observed for four years. For the past two weeks, the Chinese in the Territory have also celebrated the New Year, starting with the Hakka Association’s Chinese New Year dinner dance at the Cypriot Hall, followed by the Chung Wah Society banquet last weekend. As usual, the banquets were both well attended by Darwinians, new and old.
For the fifth year in succession, the Chung Wah Lion Dance Troupe has gone to Alice Springs to lead in celebrations for the Chinese New Year. We blessed the stalls at the market in the mall on Sunday. Over 55 business houses and homes were blessed in Alice Springs, as well as the Alice Springs Town Council Chambers. As one alderman put it: ‘We surely need the blessing right now’.
Let’s begin with the origins of Chinese lunar calendar which is the longest chronological record in history and dates from 2637BC when it was introduced by the emperor of the day. Some will already know that there are 12 different animals represented under the calender and, in ranking order, they are the Rat, Ox, Tiger, Rabbit, Dragon, Snake, Horse, Goat, Monkey, Rooster, Dog and Pig. Legend says that this is the order in which these animals arrived after Lord Buddha summoned all the animals in his kingdom to assemble before him before he departed from earth. Buddha honoured those 12 by naming a year after each of them. Each year has five parts, or elements, which are interlinked, these being water, metal, wood, fire and earth. So a complete lunar calendar cycle takes 60 years to complete.
It is said that the animal ruling your birth year exercises a profound influence on your life, so since this is the year of the Water, or Black Horse, let me give you some background on the Horse. The Horse is born under the signs of elegance and ardour, according to the book, Your Chinese Horoscope, 2002 by Neil Somerville. He adds:
He loves meeting people, and likes attending parties and other large social gatherings. The Horse is a
lively character and enjoys being the centre of attention. He has considerable leadership qualities, and is
much admired for his honest and straightforward manner. He is an eloquent and persuasive speaker and
has a great love of discussion and debate. He has also a particularly agile mind, and can assimilate facts
remarkably quickly. This is the year of the Water Horse. He has a friendly nature, a good sense of humour,
he is astute in business matters, and quick to take advantage of any opportunities that arise. He does,
however, have a tendency to get easily distracted, and can change his interest, and indeed his mind, rather
frequently, and this can sometimes work to his detriment.
If we work through the rationale of the Chinese astrology, the Horse is imbued mainly with fire and earth. In fact, the Horse is the strongest fire element among the 12 animals. But this is the year of the Water Horse, so water cannot extinguish fire all the time. Both elements of earth and fire, of the Horse, will consume water, so there will be conflict in this year between water and fire and disputes and arguments will always be there.
Let me now come to describe in greater detail about this year of the Horse. Shelley Woo, in her Chinese Astrology, wrote:
Horse years are notorious historical turning points, turbulent, untamed and chaotic. Every 12 years the
Horse comes around asking its question, ‘Are you awake?’ The Yang force is at its peak during Horse
years, requiring action and movement.
Of the five elements I mentioned, the Horse is accompanied predominantly by fire. This can bring to boil the
water element of 2002, which can flare up when least expected. Rigour and severity are also chronicled
with unusual excesses befalling governing forces. The Horse governs a year where money flows too freely
through the fingers, and where savings accounts dwindle. Travel, voyages and changes occur in Horse years,
when most of us would prefer to be anywhere but home. This year may be polarised by a manic depressive air
of enthusiasm followed by self doubt.
Horse years demand independence and freedom, despite the cost, a decisive year, when many will strike out on
their own. Impatient and talkative, horses play offence in life, and in 2002 it will be an enterprising year when
entrepreneurial efforts and small businesses can flourish. Romantic infatuation is the name of the game this year,
as the Horse falls very easily in and out of love. A narcissistic and self centred year where even the most self
effacing personalities think of themselves first. Creative lending, money matters and intense competition take the
spotlight. Ceaseless motion, decisiveness and control flavour this active year. A spirited, fiery heedless time to
move forward and to advance causes. The pulse of 2002 is fast and wildly variable.
Shelley Woo advises us to think and reflect, look before you leap in 2002, seek a healthy balance between deliberation and action, and avoid excessive physical or emotional escapades.
For those of you who believe in Feng Shui for this year, the eastern area of your house is an unlucky area in 2002. You are advised not to have any home improvements in this direction. The southern area is not a lucky area either. Do not let weak or sick family members live in a bedroom in this direction. The northern area won’t generate the career and money luck. The western area, however, is an auspicious area and gives people career and money luck in 2002. The south western area can make people smarter, thus a good area for a study, and may bring you career or money luck.
The last 14 days celebrations have occurred across the Territory, bringing Chinese culture to one and all. In Alice Springs we had great celebrations around the area and we hope that we will have many more of these to come. Tomorrow, I wish you all a happy Chinese New Year, the last day of the 15 days of celebration, and we will see the lion coming to bless this Chamber.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, on 5 December 2001, I hosted a Christmas party for the Wagaman Residents Committee. They have been very active during the year in combatting antisocial behaviour in the Wagaman area, particularly laneways at the bottom of Amsterdam Circuit. The laneways have been temporarily closed by the council on a trial basis for some time, pending a forthcoming Local Government Act Regulations which will enable the council to legally temporarily lanes close lanes and laneways, particularly in the face of antisocial behaviour. I commend Minister Vatskalis for expediting those regulation changes to the Local Government Act. I know that the residents committee is also very grateful for that action.
At the end of December, I was approached by Tim Garner of Moil, seeking support for participating in the School Sports Australia Primary School Boys Cricket Exchange in Adelaide from 11 to 20 January. I had no hesitation in offering support as I was assured that Tim, who just turned 13, is very dedicated towards his cricket and works very hard with training and skills development. Tim reported back to me in January. He had a wonderful time in Adelaide during the exchange and had gained much valuable experience. The NT team won one cricket match, the first in three years, and I congratulate Tim on his dedication to his chosen sport.
On 10 December, I also held another Christmas party in my electorate office, which was well attended by residents and friends who took the opportunity to meet each other, discuss local issues and imbibe some Christmas cheer.
On 11 December, I had the privilege of being asked to assist in the distribution of awards at the Stage 1 presentation event at Casuarina Senior College, which lies within the Johnston electorate. I continue to be most impressed by both students and staff at Casuarina Senior College, and wish them all the best during this coming school year. Results from students graduating were most impressive with Iyngaranathan Selvaratnam achieving an outstanding aggregate TER of 99.35.
Whilst mentioning high achievers, I recently attended the Northern Territory Board of Studies award presentation where the Top Twenty 2001 final year students were honoured. It was a great ceremony, and my sincere congratulations go to these students, which also included nine students from the Casuarina Senior College. I would like again to mention Iyngaranathan Selvaratnam, along with Elaine Loh, Sarah Sharples, Louisa Cowie, Phillipa Howard, Melissa James, Roger Cranswick, Michael Hanlin and Gavin McKinnon, and wish them all the best in their future studies.
The Board of Studies also recognised John Bruyn, Christopher Noble and Alan Rigby of Casuarina Senior College, who received the DCIS Information Technology Awards. At the awards, the Chief Minister also recognised April Phillips of Casuarina Senior College, by awarding her the most outstanding Stage 2 NTCE Indigenous Student of 2001. Congratulations to April, and I wish her every success in the future.
We spoke this morning about George Brown, and I believe his spirit was alive and well at the flag raising and citizenship ceremony at Marrarra on Australia Day. It was great to see over 50 new citizens take the pledge. Quite a number of them were known to me and a some live within the electorate. It was also a pleasure to watch young Territorians receive Australia Day Awards, including Elaine Loh of Casuarina Senior College, Jessica Smith of Wagaman Primary School, Keisha Tinley of Jingili Primary School and Visalini Vinu of Alawa Primary School, awarded the 2002 Student Citizen’s Award, and Melissa James of Casuarina Senior College, awarded the Australia Day Council Australian History Award.
The beginning of February saw school commence for semester 1, and I had the pleasure of meeting with all school principals of the four schools in my electorate. Changes in staffing meant seeing new faces, as well as familiar ones. On 12 February, I derived great personal satisfaction by being able to present Wagaman Primary School Council with a cheque for $15 000, which was an NTsafe Crime Prevention Grant to fund an initiative aimed at reducing vandalism. Fencing will be installed to secure less visible areas, and lighting will be upgraded to improve general visibility. The school is also hopeful of promoting broader community use of its premises by community groups.
On 13 February, I attended a business awareness luncheon, organised by Mr Lyall Wheaton, and also by Mr Rick Van Dieren. Lyall Wheaton is Executive Director of the Handicapped Persons Association of the NT, or HPA. The luncheon was preceded by a tour of Kokoda Industries, Supertube Outdoor Furniture, Calico Connection and Job-Link. I would highly commend a visit to these industries by other members in order to see the high quality of work produced at these outlets, and the wonderful work that HPA does in ensuring the employment of handicapped people in these industries.
At the end of the year, I was also invited to join the Rapid Creek Catchment Advisory Committee which considers and advises on policy for the management of the natural resources of Rapid Creek and its catchment. This area forms the only significant freshwater system in Darwin and, hence, is a valuable community asset. Increasing development in the area has meant that we have had to keep a close eye on it to provide protection of remaining vegetation and the creek amenity, as well as its water quality.
On 15 February, I had the pleasure of attending the National Heart Foundation Gala Fundraising evening. The evening was a great success for the foundation, an organisation which is naturally close to my heart and one which I fully support.
As the member for Greatorex mentioned, on 16 February, quite a good crowd turned out to celebrate the Chinese New Year at the MGM Grand Casino. The Chinese community welcomed the new year with two weeks of traditional festivities, which the member for Greatorex has detailed, and I am looking forward to the display tomorrow, and also Dragon Boat Racing on 3 March.
Dr Lim: It is a blessing. It is not a display, it is a blessing. It is like a Christian priest coming in here to bless.
Dr BURNS: The blessing, all right.
Finally, I was privileged to be asked to open a special gift to the people of Darwin at the Water Gardens in Jingili last week - a sculpture entitled Drop and Ripple, designed to reflect the way in which early settlement of Darwin was linked to the availability of water. The sculpture was a project put together by Total Recreation, an organisation that I hadn’t heard of before, but it is a support service for people with a disability. Total Recreation coordinates sport and recreation activities for people with a disability, as well as assisting them with inclusion in mainstream activities. Mr Paul Van Oosten, of Total Recreation, explained to me that the gift to the people of Darwin is as much a celebration of the potential of the abilities of people with an intellectual disability, as it is an opportunity for them to contribute to their community in a way which they feel will be valued. The artists include Narelle Harrington, Mark Cavenagh, Clint Logan, Liesl Hull, and Belinda Logan, and I urge all members to view the sculpture in the water gardens and reflect on its inspiration.
On Sunday evening, 24 February, I attended an Indian cultural evening at the Darwin Entertainment Centre hosted by Dr Vinod Kulkarni. This was a fantastic evening of music and dance performed by superb artists from India. There was a big crowd and all of them enjoyed the great performance.
Finally, or nearly finally, I would like to close on a personal note. Over the Christmas/New Year period, I was able to take some leave to spend some time with my mother and my two sons. My niece and sister also visited. My mother is now well into her 80s and wanted to spend some time at the family caravan which has been permanently parked at the North Beach Caravan Park near Urunga in New South Wales. It has been a holiday place for our family for over 15 years. Although I enjoy NT fishing and have caught my fair share, I must also confess to enjoying surf fishing and I was able to do so, with our old friend Snow Moore. Snow Moore has been going to North Beach for over 20 years, and he has some interesting reports, not only of fishing, but also of naturalists who hang out up along the beach near Bundajan Rocks.
There are also other old friends I should mention - Pete and Dick Mitchell who have lived in the area all their lives. Pete is a great fisherman and catcher of beach worms for bait, an art in itself. In fact, I reckon Pete Mitchell is extremely knowledgeable in the mysterious art of catching beach worms, and I have dubbed him a professor of wormology. His brother, Dick, is one of nature’s true gentlemen, and a champion lawn bowler.
Finally I look forward to the coming year. It offers us all a great challenge; for me in particularly in addressing the issues related to the antisocial behaviour in the vicinity of the Airport Hotel. I look forward to meeting many Johnston electors over the next 12 months. I intend to review my door knocking immediately after these sittings. I have also been attending Rapid Creek markets on a Sunday. I am always available to the electors of Johnston.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members that they should be in the Chamber at 9.30 am tomorrow for the traditional Chinese Lion Dance blessing.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016