2003-08-13
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of members of the Salvation Army MASH, Mature Aged Social Hour. On behalf of all members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Territory Marketing Campaign – Investment Mission to Sydney
Territory Marketing Campaign – Investment Mission to Sydney
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I provide a ministerial report into my recent investment mission to Sydney as part of this government’s Territory marketing campaign.
The primary purpose of the investment and marketing campaign is to position the Northern Territory as a premiere place to invest in the minds of local, national and, indeed, international investors, whether as individuals or as members of corporations. A subset of that is also to position the Territory as a place of new employment opportunities so that we may attract the workers - semi-skilled, skilled or highly skilled - that the Territory will demand as our major projects come on stream and we build the important supply chains behind them.
Last week’s investment mission to Sydney followed the very successful structure developed earlier this year when I travelled to Hong Kong, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur to promote the great business opportunities in the Territory with a particular focus on the AustralAsia trade route. The feedback and lessons of that visit were factored in and we developed a multi-level strategy that we know really hit the mark. The overall package for this mission included:
selective prime time television advertising that focussed on our great opportunities for
investment, employment and lifestyle;
selective advertising in key business publications focussed directly on investing in the
Territory;
a wide range of electronic and press media opportunities where the key interest was in
what the Territory had to offer;
a keynote address on the opportunities in the Territory to the National Infrastructure
Summit focussing especially on our new public/private partnerships framework called
Territory Partnerships; and
in partnership with the NT Chamber of Commerce and Industry - and I take this opportunity
to thank their president, Bruce Fadelli, who is a great ambassador for the Territory - we
joined the Australian Business Limited for a lunch meeting with a diverse group of very
senior Australian business people.
I took this opportunity to really drill down into the business opportunities emerging in the Territory, as well as this government’s plan to leverage those opportunities to deepen our business sector and broaden our skills base. Their enthusiasm for the Territory was truly remarkable and I believe the Territory is starting to strike a chord in their future business planning. I also attended a business lunch with Macquarie Bank, members of the rail consortium, and other senior business people where we discussed similar issues to position the next phase of the rail project.
There is an important message I need to reaffirm to Territorians in relation to investment and skills attraction to satisfy them that their government understands them as well. My government is well aware that perhaps 85% of all new investment comes from locals, and we want to retain every last dollar of that in the Territory. My government has no intention of simply encouraging more of the same to invest in the Territory. What we want to do is fill the gaps in our economy, encourage new joint ventures and alliances and, very importantly, build the new supply chains behind our major projects - projects such as the rail, Wickham Point, Alcan, Blacktip, Trans-Territory Pipeline and, of course, our Desert and Tropical Knowledge initiatives. That is why a small but significant element of our advertising was targeted at Territorians. We also want every Territorian acting as an ambassador to attract investment and people to the Territory.
In much the same vein we want to attract new skills to the Territory to make these new business endeavours work. At the same time, we continue to invest heavily in industry training and provide the opportunities for Territorians, but it is also clear that, with the $5bn of new investment scheduled for the Territory, we are also going to need more people if we are going to retain the most value here.
Marketing itself is an investment, and the results will take time to wash through. This first Australian investment mission required the production of a significant amount of material. It will now be available for all subsequent missions. Our costs are still being collated, but my department has provided an estimate of $400 000. Future events will only require on-ground expenditures and will be considerably less.
I have given Territorians a commitment that I will do everything I can to encourage further investment in the Territory and this first instalment in the Territory marketing campaign will be followed by similar events in Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide this year. Our campaign will spark the interest of Australians - it already has - and that interest will translate into more business and more jobs. That is a role for government and one I am very proud to do on behalf of all Territorians.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, of course, the opposition applauds the effort of the Chief Minister and her government in marketing the Northern Territory interstate and internationally. That is something that has always been a hallmark of Territory governments since self-government. It is pleasing to see that the Chief Minister and her government is maintaining that momentum. That momentum, I hope, would be paying off in some regards. The Chief Minister mentioned her trip to Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong. I would be interested to find out what were the actual outcomes of that particular visit in terms of investment in the Northern Territory.
It is one thing to market the Territory. What we want to see, of course, is the tangible outcomes for the effort that is involved – significant effort when it comes to taxpayers’ money. The new campaign that has been taken interstate – it is pleasing from the opposition’s point of view that that has the hallmark tag of the Difference is Opportunity, developed by the CLP and once described by the now Deputy Chief Minister as a load of crap, when he was in opposition. It is pleasing to see that the strategy of that marketing campaign is now recognised by the government as being well developed.
Certainly, from the Chief Minister’s comments, the information that was important to be given to other Australians about the difference is opportunity in the Northern Territory is to ensure people are aware that we do have good education facilities, we do have great opportunities for jobs and employment, and we do have great opportunities for families to settle in the Northern Territory. I hope, whilst it is important that there is a focus on big business, that the focus on attracting families to the Northern Territory is well and truly there in that campaign.
From a local business perspective, an important thing the government needs to take on board is that local business needs to know what are the incentives that are being offered to southern businesses. They are not seeing those incentives provided for them. If there are incentives in the discussions the Chief Minister is having with potential interstate investors, Territorians want to know what incentives they actually are. For example, commercial power rates and those sorts of issues are unknown in terms of …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired Leader of the Opposition.
Mr BURKE: … new incentives provided by this government. So we applaud the effort and look for more detail.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also welcome the government’s move to increase investment and create business and jobs in the Territory. However, I wonder whether government and local businesses have missed one point; that is, the average weekly wage in the Territory has been declining. It has declined for the last seven years, and that trend almost matches the decline in the Territory population. This point was raised by John Shepherd from Katherine, and I thank him for bringing this to our attention. This was in the NT News dated 7 August, and it is well known that the cost of living in the Territory is high, but for a number of years, the increasing wages is what attracted people to the Northern Territory and of course this has not happened in the last few years.
Ten years ago, the only region paying higher weekly wages than the Territory was the ACT and now that has changed considerably. The average weekly pay packet in the Territory is now below the national average by $20 a week, which is unprecedented, and $150 less than the ACT. Statistics show that Darwin has the highest cost of living of all capital cities.
To quote Mr Shepherd:
- If the Territory is to attract people and get them to stay then wages and salaries must encourage
them to do just that. Only then will we have a stable and growing population of committed Territorians.
So, if the Territory government and businesses have to try to think of policies which will reverse this trend, perhaps the government could start lobbying the Commonwealth for a larger zone allowance tax rebate for Territory workers, for instance.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank both members for their contribution. Picking up the member for Nelson’s comments, we have seen the work profile change in the Territory. Much of the work force was employed in areas like mines. Percentage-wise, a considerable proportion is now in the service industries and there are lower wage rates, which means we should not be satisfied with that. With the major projects coming on board, we will see those hourly rates increase. I would like to see the average wage rise.
One of the key elements of my investment targeting was both business and lifestyle in the Territory. One of the key elements when talking to a Sydney market was housing affordability; we have the most affordable housing in Australia, and in a market like Sydney where you do not get into the market for under $500 000, to be able to get into the market in Darwin at $200 000 is a great incentive and a great attractor. There are some real positives about living in the Territory and when you are in a market like Sydney, you certainly receive a very positive response.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Chief Minister.
_______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Year 4 and 5 students from Marrara Christian School accompanied by their teacher, Rosie Bignall. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_______________________
Darwin Cup Carnival 2003
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, each year the Darwin Cup Carnival seems to get bigger and better and this year proved no exception. Darwin, of course, turned on its traditional brilliant Dry Season weather for the whole of the eight-day carnival, which saw class competition on the track, fabulous fashions on the field, and plenty of punting on course.
Around 45 000 people from the Territory and interstate visited Fannie Bay Racecourse throughout the carnival; 24 000 turning up for Cup Day including our Prime Minister for a short time.
I was interested to see comments made by top racing journalist, Ken Calendar, and reported in the Northern Territory News that on a per-capita basis, no other racing event in Australia comes even close to attracting the sort of attendance figure achieved here for the Darwin Cup. With 25 000 people on a pro rata basis, to achieve the same ratio down south, he claims you would need to see 1.3 million people at Randwick for Derby Day at Easter, and 900 000 at Flemington on Cup Day. It would be interesting to see how they would fit that many people into those facilities.
The Cup has cemented itself as a ‘not to be missed’ event on the Darwin social calendar, and more people each year from interstate are making the trek up here to enjoy it. They did not go home disappointed this year. The punters were out in force. Betting turnover was the highest it has ever been; total oncourse TAB turnover for the eight-day carnival was $2.8m, up more than 15% on last year. On Cup Day, oncourse turnover was $862 000, up 7.6%; TAB turnover was over $1.7m, up 6.9%.
The event attracted some of Australia’s top racing identities including legendary journalists, John Russell and Ken Calendar; leading trainers, Lee Freedman, Bart Cummings, and Graeme Rogerson, who had 30 horses racing and ended up taking home the cup despite a slow start to the carnival. Arguably, Australia’s best jockey, Chris Munce - I do not know how I missed him - rode Rogerson’s Cup winning horse, Wild Heart, to victory in the cup. Up until that point, local trainers, jockeys and horses had dominated the carnival. I particularly acknowledge the success of Darwin trainer, Anne Marie White, who ended up with 11 winners and a new car because 10 winners at the carnival produced a new Toyota from Bridge Autos Toyota for a $30 000 vehicle. She was delighted, as was her partner, Paul ‘Dash’ Denton, who rode many of those 11 winners.
The Alice Springs contingent also had reason to go home happy. By the end of the carnival, 21 Centralian winners had picked up over a third of the prize money. Stand-outs included: Duchovny Comedy, which won the Chief Minister’s Cup; Edge to Edge took out the Darwin Guineas; Solario won the Buntine Handicap; Tjilpi took out the Northern Territory Derby; Here’s Me Mate, bought locally through the Red Centre Yearling Sales, had a couple of nice wins including on Cup Day.
Darwin Turf Club President, Ted Bailey, former Chief Executive, David Aldred, and their staff deserve to be commended for the work they put into making the carnival such a success. David Aldred has now left the Territory for a new challenge in Tasmania. I am sure all members would wish he and his wife, Debra, all the best for the future down in Tassie. He has done a great job for the Darwin Cup over the past few years.
Thanks also must go to the many sponsors of the carnival. We simply would not have the class event that it now is without their support. The government is also a proud supporter. We helped to secure SKY Channel coverage again for the event this year. It was great to see Fannie Bay Racecourse looking spectacular on the big screen, knowing it is being watched all over Australia by punters, racing enthusiasts, owners, trainers and jockeys. It is the premier event on the first Monday in August. You wonder why SKY Channel sometimes proves difficult to deal with.
It is a fantastic advertisement for the Territory. It will undoubtedly help to market and attract more people next year. Once again, congratulations to everyone who had a hand in ensuring the success of the cup. I hope they all get a well earned break before they start preparation for the 2004 Darwin Cup Carnival.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, in reply I place on record the CLP’s appreciation to the chairman, Ted Bailey, the executive members, and particularly to David Aldred. As the minister has said, David Aldred has now left for a position in Tasmania. I would like to say, what a fantastic job David has done in a time of change in the racing industry in the Northern Territory, and not just to the peak body, Darwin Turf Club, but also to country racing with the changes in funding that have occurred over the last five years or so, and in particular to Adelaide River and Pine Creek, that he has supported. He was always there, whether he was commentating or had his horses there, but willing to talk to the committees of those race clubs to provide support, and they have grown in their racing abilities.
It was a great carnival. A fantastic culmination with the Darwin Cup. I am sorry the minister for Racing did not back the winner, as I did, and in fact the second place getter, the Spunk, at 21/1, I had also backed. Perhaps we should get together next time at the race meeting. Thanks to all the sponsors, everybody involved, trainers, jockeys, for a fantastic carnival and we look forward to the one next year.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for his supportive comments. It matters little to me, last year I picked one, two and three for the media and got out to the track and did not back them, so it makes no difference. This year, I failed to pick a winner virtually throughout the carnival. I enjoyed the track, as I know the member for Daly did. I thank him for his supportive comments, including those directed to David Aldred who did do a good job and will be missed by the racing fraternity in the Northern Territory.
Northern Territory Expo
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I provide a report on the success of the 2003 Northern Territory Expo held in Darwin last month. Organised by the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry, NT Expo is the largest exposition of its kind in Australia, and is an event that enables a wide cross-section of industry sectors to showcase their goods and services.
The Territory government is again proud to continue its long association with Expo and provide gold sponsorship. This year, Expo focussed on showcasing the innovation and growth in our local business sector, and with 205 exhibitors, including interstate and international information booths this year, provided exhibitors and visitors with an audience of over 20 000 people. This is commendable despite the significant regional uncertainty brought about by recent acts of terrorism in the region and SARS. Congratulations to Vicki Spence and her team for another successful expo.
I was pleased to welcome strong representation from Sabah, Malaysia; Labuan, Malaysia; Bali, Indonesia; Timika, Indonesia; East Timor; and Turkey. As well, we also received visits from Austrade trade representatives based in Milan, Jakarta, Port Moresby, Beijing, Osaka and Singapore. This was the largest Austrade delegation to ever visit a Northern Territory event. Two symposia were held in conjunction with NT Expo: the Singtel Optus symposium on ‘Trends in Wireless Technology’, and, in a first for the Territory, a transport symposium.
The transport symposium, sponsored by my department, was dedicated to transport to, from and within the Northern Territory that explored trade development and opportunities in Indonesia; a perspective on local shipping issues; opportunities for the new Adelaide to Darwin rail link; and the latest developments with oil and gas exploration and mining in the region. The transport symposium offered a valuable insight for potential and existing investors wanting to capture the exciting business opportunities about to be generated within the Territory with the near completion of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and Darwin’s new East Arm port, thereby creating the AustralAsian trade route.
One hundred and forty-seven people attended this event from a wide range of local and interstate businesses and visiting international delegates. High profile speakers, well respected in shipping, rail and air freight logistics, provided detailed summations on current transport systems that are vitally important to the future challenges of Darwin becoming the focal point in the AustralAsia trade corridor.
Local transport operators were provided with detailed briefings on shipping, rail and air freight systems that will help position them for the future. International speakers provided an overview of how the Territory industry and government can collaborate to take advantage of the infrastructure of the rail and port facilities to expand trade between the regions.
NT Expo continues to provide an opportunity to network and develop new business acquaintances. A sell-out business matching luncheon was held following the transport symposium with over 150 appointments made for local business representatives to meet with Austrade delegates. Trade is a two way street, and here in the Territory we travel this street in both directions. Not only were business matching appointments made to generate the export of Territory goods and services, but meetings were also established to help Territory business source goods and services from outside Australia. Sabah’s delegation to Expo was headed by Datuk Wences Angang, Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Industrial Development, and was the largest international group at Expo with 26 business and government officials. This delegation represented a range of business and government interests, including construction, transport and logistics, financial services, tourism and furniture.
I will quote from the front page of the Daily Express of Eastern Malaysia of 16 July this year. It reads: ‘Aussie Technology for States Industrial Sector’. The story talks about the achievements of the Sabah delegation to NT Expo. It goes on to outline their successful visit involving joint ventures and technology transfers with Territory companies. It also mentions the links established by Rooney Shipping and Trading and the Asian supply base. I was present to witness the signing of a MOU between Rooney Shipping and Trading and the Asian supply base of Labuan in Malaysia. This MOU will see Rooney Shipping become the first Darwin business to be accepted into the lucrative Malaysian trading group, the Asian Supply Base, and will provide a conduit for local Darwin companies as well as Darwin redistribution hub approved suppliers to tender for contracts in Malaysia.
Rooney Shipping was busy also signing a Memorandum of Agreement with the Bupati of Mimika Regency, Bapak Klemen Tinal, conveyed by the five representatives from the Mimika Regency, Papua delegation to Expo. This MOA assigns the management rights of the international wharves of Mimika Regency to Rooney Shipping for the next 30 years - a magnificent achievement. I would really like to congratulate Graham Lacey and Rooney Shipping and Trading on the work that they are doing in the region. This is an important first step in establishing a direct shipping service from Darwin port to the region. The anticipated commencement date for this shipping service is 1 November this year.
Madam Speaker, the Territory government is proud of its long association with NT Expo, and will continue to support and assist it in guiding its continued evolution as the region’s premier trade exposition.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, the CLP applauds Expo also. It has a long heritage now spanning over a couple of decades. I was also fortunate to not only attend Expo, but to talk to Datuk Angang from the Sabah delegation and also to listen to a couple of the speakers. The Darwin City Council arranged for a speaker whose name I forget, but it was very interesting on matters relating to recycling and greening issues and triple bottom lines and issues like that.
Rooney Shipping is to be congratulated. Roger Rooney has been inducted into the Northern Territory Exporter’s Hall of Fame - RIP. He was a man who did a great deal for this part of the Northern Australia, and his legacy lives well and truly on, because that company was fortunate in securing an award at last year’s annual NT Export Trader’s Exporters Award. If they enter they will likely do likewise again this year.
The matters relating to Expo have to be looked at by government. I note the minister said it was highly successful but, to my knowledge, there was only one ministerial delegation. It is really important to make sure that members of government from our near northern neighbours come to Expo and, likewise, we go to Expos in the region. I have received an invitation to go to the Sabah Expo which is coming up, I think, next year. I note that the Chief Minister has given broad approval to the Sabah delegation that the Territory will be represented there, and I hope that is the case.
It is important that we re-engage with Asia. It has been said before that the frequency of visits, the familiar relationships we had with various heads of state throughout Asia and with people throughout government, are eroding. These things must be maintained. We believe that members of the Cabinet opposite must travel more frequently into Asia - and that is several of them. We believe that the numbers of visits thus far has been abysmally low. It is very important, therefore, that ministers dust off their passports, get on a plane, and get into Asia.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his broadly supportive comments. I can confirm that the Chief Minister and I will be attending the Sabah Expo next year. We would have gone last year except that that event conflicted with sittings of this parliament. That is a commitment that we have made.
It is very important that we continue our trading and political relationships with the region. We do travel. I will be off to Asia - we are planning our itinerary - again in September of this year. The criticisms from members of the opposition in that regard are pretty ill-founded. But he has to consider events in the region at the moment. The Commonwealth government’s position on travelling into the region does affect government’s decision about when and how we travel. It is not just business travel, it is also public servants and other people. We do have to be mindful of events in the region, and they do influence government decisions. However, my plans at this point are still to travel in September.
International Cricket in Darwin
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I publicly acknowledge the hard work of those dedicated individuals who, with the support of this government, worked tirelessly to ensure not only the advent of international cricket in Darwin, but also its widely acclaimed success.
The government’s initiative in securing and facilitating international cricket at what is now an international class venue, the Marrara Oval in Darwin, has been well and truly justified. It now goes without saying that Marrara Oval provided a first class venue for some sensational and exciting first class cricket action. Recently released attendance figures from Cricket Australia indicate that many Territorians and visitors would agree with this assessment. In fact, the attendance of 8398 people at last Wednesday’s one day international was the largest single day attendance for the entire Top End Tour. In the words of Cricket Australia, ‘a wonderful effort’. As for the Test attendances, the figures show the highest per capita audience of any Australian test venue. Territorians love their sport.
In addition to the welcome comments by Cricket Australia, the Test captain, Steve Waugh, one day cricket captain, Ricky Pointing, and other leading players agree. In particular I would like to quote Steve Waugh in the national media:
From the players point of view it felt like a test match venue with an excellent outfield, boundaries that
seemed as big as Sydney, dressing rooms that were second only to Melbourne in size, comfortable seating
for the fans, and quality media facilities.
The tremendous work of the MCG curator Tony Ware and associated staff also won praise. Again I quote from Steve Waugh:
The pitch played very well after the limited time frame it had to settle in after being dropped in.
Adam Gilchrist stated in the national press:
As far as test grounds go, Marrara Oval is up there with the best in the country much to the credit
of the MCG curator, Tony Ware.
One day captain, Ricky Pointing, echoed these sentiments also. He wrote:
The conditions both here and in Cairns have been very good. That’s everything. That’s the change
rooms, that’s the practice wickets and the actual grounds we are playing on.
It was fantastic to see the sponsorship by Australian players of the Bangladesh team during the lead up to the one day game. True Australian mateship was demonstrated as they freely passed on their great game knowledge and skill in the recognition that Bangladesh would only value-add to the international cricket series.
Of vital importance is the contribution of the many volunteers who assisted during the games, and the dedicated staff from the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and from my own Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs who worked hard to ensure this historic event was the great success it has proved to be.
The Chief Minister’s XI match against Bangladesh provided an exciting start to the series. It also provided a magnificent opportunity for many of our talented Territorians to demonstrate their skills against the world’s newest test nation. It was a great lead up fixture to the test and one-day international series between Australia and Bangladesh and gave us a real taste of what was to come. I take this opportunity to especially thank the Northern Territory Cricket Association for their fantastic work with our local cricketers to ensure that they had the right preparation and skill base to make the most of this opportunity.
The government taken great efforts to ensure that Territorians enjoy a venue such as the Marrara Oval, which has enabled us to bring this and other high quality events to the sporting community. I applaud all those involved in 2003, and look forward to working together again to host another fantastic test match against Sri Lanka in 2004.
The Australian players are most certainly looking forward to it. Adam Gilchrist said:
From the time we arrived at Darwin Airport right through to the end of the Test, we were welcomed
with open arms.
One-Day Captain, Ricky Ponting said:
The people and hospitality has been sensational so I know all the guys will be looking forward to coming
back again next year.
Like other Territorians, I am really looking forward to next year and the years after that. I congratulate all involved in bringing international cricket to the Territory.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the opposition also congratulates all those who were involved in this wonderful event. There was an extraordinary level of support from the Northern Territory community. There must have been an incredible number of sickies taken on that day but, once again, it shows the tremendous support that the Northern Territory community has for events such as this.
We know that these events start with an idea and a vision, and that vision has been passed onto the current government. There can only be acknowledgement of the way that it progressed, and particularly the development of Marrara Oval. However, as we move forward we must recognise that these things do not stop at a one day test match. We can certainly have a round of applause and acknowledge those who supported it and made it such a good event. We did get off to a great start, but what lies ahead? What is next?
I have some concerns, and the minister may well dispel these concerns. We have an increasing load on the Northern Territory community of wonderful events like Darwin Cup, V8 Supercars; we have one day cricket coming up with Sri Lanka, and I look forward to that immensely. However, there is a story circulating about a clash of events, particularly with V8 Supercars and the Sri Lanka test match. Is this the case? Is there an overlap of that timetable and how will that be managed? Will that create some difficulty in securing adequate support for the cricket or for the V8 Supercars, and how will that be managed? Also, we have the rising conflict with the AFL match that has been proposed and the Darwin Cup. I trust that we can have some clarity on that to ensure that we are not going to get ourselves too congested.
Unfortunately, I missed the cricket due to my commitments at Tennant Creek looking after constituents there. I enjoyed myself at the Tennant Creek Show, but next year I do hope to see Sri Lanka.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MOTION
Fixed Four-Year Terms for Elections of the Legislative Assembly
Fixed Four-Year Terms for Elections of the Legislative Assembly
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That the government legislate for fixed four-year terms for elections of the Legislative Assembly.
I realise this debate has perhaps been overtaken by the government’s Independent Review of the Northern Territory Electoral System, which I believe is in its second draft stage, but the issue is worth debating. It is something I have had on my agenda for quite some time.
Fixed terms in New South Wales came through a memorandum of understanding signed between the independents and the Greiner minority Coalition government in the early 1990s as a part of the deal to form government. Fixed terms in Victoria came about through a similar agreement reached between the independents and the Bracks Labor government in 1999. It was passed as legislation in March this year. South Australia also has fixed four-year terms. That parliament passed its legislation in October 2001. All three jurisdictions had to make amendments to their constitutions to put the fixed terms in place. It appears that if there is support for fixed four-year terms in the Territory, legal advice will have to be sought on whether the Territory has the powers to legislate for fixed election dates under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, or whether we would first have to seek an amendment to that legislation in the federal parliament.
It appears that the major parties interstate were somewhat nervous about introducing fixed terms on their own initiative, and had to be forced to do it by the independents. They feared the loss of the ability of the government of the day to choose an election date which suited their purposes. An example would be when the polls showed they were doing well and the economy was booming, when they were not embroiled in any major controversy, when there was no federal election to confuse the issue, or even when most voters are distracted by holidays or Christmas.
However, now that fixed terms have been tested, especially in New South Wales, the fear factor has disappeared, and the advantages are appreciated. Thus, we have seen the South Australian parliament adopt four-year fixed terms, with the support of major parties, and they did not have to be pushed into it by independents. As long as there are safeguards to ensure that if the government does not have the confidence of the House, or that no party can get a working majority to form government, then an election will be called early, fixed terms should be adopted.
I also note in local government - which is my background - New South Wales has fixed terms for four years; South Australia has fixed terms for three years; Victoria – annual, or once every three years; in Western Australia they are not fixed; and Queensland and Tasmania have flexible four year terms. However, in the Northern Territory, municipal councils are on a fixed term. Having lived with that system for at least three elections, I found it worked perfectly well for local government, and I have yet to be convinced that it would not work for the Northern Territory government. Everybody knew when the election was going to be, you could certainly set out your plans for the future based on a four-year period, and I believe it allows certainty, especially in local government.
What are the advantages of a fixed term parliament? As I said before, elections could always be held in the Dry Season, not during the school holidays, when many residents go interstate or overseas. It allows certainty for election planning. As regards accountability, there is no need for every decision and debate to be made in an environment of a pending election, and I do not think that does anyone any good when you are trying to make good decisions. Stability – it is a guaranteed period of time, providing continuity of knowledge and experience in parliament and government. It enables government departments and businesses to plan forward with confidence. In fact, it also gives certainty to the electoral process.
It reduces the opportunity of the government of the day to choose a day that will benefit its own chances of re-election. As the Attorney-General of South Australia said in parliament in 1984 in support of fixed terms, they remove the potential for cynicism and opportunism from the decision-making process that applies to elections. Short term, ad hoc, political advantages should not hold sway with a decision to go to the people. It also reduces the voter burn-out that occurs when voters have to go to polling booths too often. No more endless, fruitless, election date speculation. It also allows greater time for consultation and evaluation, and it allows local members and candidates more time to systematically serve their electorates.
If we are tyring to improve democracy, and I know there are some people in the community who disagree with fixed terms as being anti-democratic, one of the reasons I believe fixed terms are more democratic is it allows candidates who are proposing to stand, time to go around their electorate and campaign. Not be told one week before the writs are served that there is going to be an election, and then, of course, have to campaign. It opens it up for a more democratic process.
However, there are arguments against fixed terms: less frequent electoral accountability; less opportunity for voters to reflect contemporary views in a world that is changing rapidly. Some people say that what makes a government accountable over that four years when there is no Upper House is having that electoral accountability, not having a fixed term of a parliamentary period. You will notice that Queensland, which does not have an Upper House, has not opted for fixed term despite considering four year terms.
There are some people who say you will have a long, unofficial election campaign in the year leading up to the election, as happens in the United States. Well, we are not the United States, and the proof of the pudding is really in the New South Wales elections where they have the fixed period for quite some time. I am not sure that there has been a long, unofficial campaign in New South Wales. I follow politics throughout Australia, but I have not seem much difference between their campaign and campaigns elsewhere.
What would be the exceptional circumstances under which the Administrator could call an early election? One circumstance is when the Legislative Assembly passes a motion of no confidence in the government and no party can form a workable majority with the confidence of the House. Another circumstance is when a by-election results in the government losing a majority in the House and no other party can form a workable majority with the confidence of the House. There may also be some other constitutional conventions that might require that.
If the election is called early, the election should be held within 40 days of the writs being issued. The following election should be held as close as possible to four years later but on the set date. There could also be exceptional circumstances under which the Administrator can vary the date of the election by three weeks. That is where there is a natural disaster or a state disaster, where the federal election has been called on the set date for the Territory election, and when a one-off national public holiday is declared for that date set for the Territory election.
I believe that legitimising these kinds of exceptional circumstances would require amendments to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. The Territory parliament would have to petition the federal parliament to consider the changes. The current self-government act does not spell out how the Territory’s Legislative Assembly can be dissolved, or under what circumstances. It is, therefore, up to the government, parliament and the Administrator to act on convention. For example, if there was a vote of no confidence in the government today, the Administrator would look to see if the opposition could form a viable government and, if not, would dissolve parliament and call an election. There would probably need to be a transition clause to cover the first election before the first four-year term is introduced.
In conclusion, I expect that the reaction to this proposal from the community will be focussed on the fact that four-year fixed terms offer fewer chances for voters to hold members accountable for their actions. However, there is a need to strike a balance between how often voters are given a chance to judge a government’s performance against how much time a government is given to perform. I believe the benefits of fixed four-year terms outweigh these disadvantages.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, as the member for Nelson said in his opening remarks, maybe this motion before the parliament today has been overtaken by events regarding the government’s independent review of the Northern Territory Electoral Act.
On coming to government, we did commit to open and accountable government. One of the commitments that we made to Territorians was to establish an independent Electoral Office. At the moment, the Northern Territory Electoral Office is part of the Chief Minister’s Department. It is very important - in fact, it is vital - that Territorians have confidence in our democratic system and our electoral system in the Northern Territory. That confidence is underpinned by the fact we believe, on this side of the House, that we need an independent Electoral Commission in the Northern Territory. We are committed to doing that; that is why we have commissioned Minter Ellison Consulting to provide options to government in the establishment of an independent Electoral Commission. At the moment, there is a discussion paper out with Territorians - people who are interested in our community - to comment on the types of options that could be put in place for an independent Electoral Commission in the Territory, and any changes that may be required to the Northern Territory Electoral Act to support that independent commission.
We on this side of the House do not want to pre-empt that debate; we have gone to Territorians. This is fundamentally an issue of confidence in our democratic system of government in the Northern Territory, and in the independence of our electoral system. That debate is now being played out in the Northern Territory. The government will bring the Minter Ellison report to this House. Government will make a decision towards the end of this year and bring a fulsome debate to this House at that time. However, we do not want to pre-empt the community debate that is occurring.
If we were to support this motion, that would be pre-empting that debate. I do not think it is healthy. This is such a fundamental issue in terms of our democratic structures and systems that we do need to engage Territorians on this issue. That is what we are doing at the moment, so the government cannot support this motion today. I am sure this and other issues will be fully debated by this parliament when we bring the review of the Northern Territory Electoral Act into this House towards the end of the year.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): In closing, I am only going to be short, Madam Speaker. I also welcome the independent Electoral Office. That is really important. It is a change that is long overdue. I congratulate the government on introducing that new office. It is very important that electoral reform does include independence.
I realise, as I said in my opening remarks, that the independent review is happening at the moment. I was arguing that in this case, the government, if it felt like it, could go ahead with this particular matter without involving the electoral view. It is an item that could sit there by itself really. But I understand what you are doing; you are trying to look at the whole electoral system in a package.
I welcome the minister’s comments that there will be a fulsome debate in parliament. There are certainly some issues in here that even the person putting this together has left us with some debate. He gives us three recommendations instead of one, and I certainly would be interested in a fulsome debate about all that. I believe that the motion I have put is a fundamental issue in our electoral system in the Northern Territory. For many years I felt that the system can get used to a particular party’s advantage, simply because of the opportunity if the economy is doing well, or if people are feeling good, we go to an election.
We should really be voting on what a government has done over its whole term. We should be looking at that rather than what they have done in the last five minutes. There has been a tendency in Australia and the Territory to go to an election just after some great statement has been made about some project, or something that is going to happen in the Territory. I accept that the government will not support it and I understand their reasons. However, I would still like to commend the motion to honourable members.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Duplication of Stuart Highway – Noonamah to Cox Peninsula Road and Impact on Strauss Airstrip
Duplication of Stuart Highway – Noonamah to Cox Peninsula Road and Impact on Strauss Airstrip
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That the duplication of the Stuart Highway between Noonamah and Cox Peninsula Road, as mentioned in the 2003-04 budget, should proceed in the following stages:
(a) relocation, realignment or burial of the water pipeline alongside the existing highway; and
so that the Strauss World War II airstrip is not used as part of the duplication of the Stuart Highway.
The government’s proposal to run the Stuart Highway through Strauss Airstrip is the reason I raised this issue in the first place. I believe we need to preserve these strips as they are. They may not be in good nick and a lot of times the reason for that is because governments or departments have treated them with contempt. For instance, Sattler Airstrip near Bees Creek had the main water pipe from Darwin go straight through the middle of it. When I came to the Territory it was a perfectly usable airstrip. In fact, it was the reserve airstrip for Darwin Airport and was marked out as such.
Strauss Airstrip had a weighbridge put on it and is also continually being used for the mixing of bitumen and materials when gangs are repairing the road. Hughes Airstrip has probably been one airstrip that has not had much done to it simply because it is off the highway and it is not easily accessible.
Livingstone Airstrip was, for a while, used as the Darwin drag strip. When it was not used as the drag strip it was just about demolished because during the upgrade of the Stuart Highway a number of years ago, a contractor decided the Wet Season was the best time to do it. The road became so impassable Livingstone Airstrip was used as the by-pass and the traffic wrecked it.
What you have are some airstrips that are not pristine. Regardless of that, they are extremely important. They are some of the few places in Australia, as I said, where action took place. They are places that should be retained so that other generations – and I call myself the other generation because I was born after World War II – can see them. They are some of the few places in the Territory and Australia where people can see what had actually happened. They can walk around where planes landed, where people lived, where bombs were unloaded, where the trains pulled in.
There is a sign at the lower end of Strauss Airstrip which no one can see unless you know it is there; it is about 200 m into the bush. It marks where the bombs were unloaded. There was a triangular railway siding where the trains came in, unloaded and went back to Darwin or back to Birdum. It is still there; the platform is still there. Yet very few people know about it.
We have an opportunity not only to preserve this heritage so young people have an understanding of what really occurred in Australia, that we really did have to defend our country, and you can stand on the airstrip where the planes landed, where the bombers landed and the fighters landed, and you can see where people camped. Today, you can even have a game of cricket on a cricket pitch that was built in World War II. I was recently privileged to meet the private who built it during the war. In fact, he was here the other day for the Darwin Cup Carnival, Vic Borowicki. Meeting him gave me more reason to say that we should be maintaining and preserving these airstrips.
I have said before that it is an opportunity for the government, if it is looking to expanding the economy, to call these heritage parks. In Alice Springs, we have the Alice Telegraph Station. It is a heritage park. We have one in Tennant Creek which is a heritage park. Why don’t we develop our airstrips, our World War II sites, as heritage parks? Perhaps you have one ranger. Perhaps you fence them off and tidy them up. Certainly we should include maps and information sites.
With Parks and Wildlife’s ventures like Cutta Cutta Caves, there is a ranger who takes you around there and tells you what is in the caves, during certain hours of the day. Why couldn’t that occur on our heritage sites? Someone could explain who flew from here, who was stationed here, and take visitors around to see where the gun emplacements were. That whole area around Livingstone, Hughes and Strauss has a vast area of gun emplacements even on private land. I am told that Santavan Station has a very big gun emplacement where you have to go down into the ground. Some of those things could be included in the heritage of this whole area.
If people have been to Sattler Airstrip, they might not realise that there is also Sattler Court, which is where Bees Creek Primary School is situated. Sattler Court is actually where the fighters used to come in and park in the bush. If you walk 50 m past Bees Creek Primary School, you will go into areas where the parachute wires and the mounding to protect the planes are still there. It has hardly changed from the day the war finished; you can walk around there today.
There is an opportunity for some of that to be preserved, and not only used, as I said, for our heritage and our education, but used as part of developing the tourist economy. You can have the two together. What is disappointing when I talk about tourism - and I will talk about it a little later - is that in government’s proposals to change the zoning they are proposing to zone Strauss Airstrip Tourist Commercial. This means you can put anything from a block of flats, a funeral parlour, or a caravan park on a heritage site. I have no problem with it being developed for some tourism, but surely Heritage is a zone we should first put on the airstrip, and then any tourism that comes with it has to fit within that heritage atmosphere. It should not be the other way around. We really have to make a better effort to preserve these airstrips because they are of much value to the Territory and Australia.
The government’s proposal is to run a duplication of the Stuart Highway from Noonamah to the Cox Peninsula Road, and their design is basically to go through at least half of the existing Strauss carriageway, so a fair bit of it would just disappear. Some of you might say: ‘Well, so what? It is just a piece of bitumen. We can put up lovely pictures and photographs and that is how people will know it’. It is too important. It may cost us a bit more money to put it on the other side of the highway, but if you really value our heritage, you will find ways and means of doing that.
The problem is, if you go through Strauss Airstrip, on the right hand side as you are going south, and you continue the duplication of the Stuart Highway further on as years go by, you will take out Livingstone Airstrip. It cannot be missed. It will be between the railway corridor, which has missed Livingstone - and I am thankful to ADrail, because I had meetings with Duncan Beggs before they finalised the route through there, which they made the narrowest of the rail corridor that they surveyed. It is 40 m there instead of the normal 60 m, and that was so that they would not demolish Strauss Airstrip. So there are reasons not only to stop the highway going through Strauss, there are reasons to say if you do that you are going to wipe out Livingstone, which would wipe out two out of the four strips in the Litchfield Shire.
The proposal I had was to relocate the pipeline. When I first went out there for a briefing, the talk originally was that there was not enough space, the optical fibre was in the road, etcetera. I have since been there with an engineer to have a look at it. I thought I would get some engineering advice. The optical fibre is in the middle, between the two pipelines. Therefore, if you put the highway to the left, the optical fibre would only be disturbed where the road actually crossed over. The engineer tells me we can fit a whole road in, with slip lanes on left and right hand sides, on the eastern side of the Stuart Highway.
I had a briefing last week, and I thank the minister for that briefing. I am told that the Territory government is going to look for funding from the Commonwealth to allow the construction of the road on the left hand side, based on new funding for the Territory, which I believe will be based on that the World War II airstrip is of heritage value and that the Commonwealth should help preserve that airstrip and therefore fund the new alignment for the second carriageway on the left hand side. The quote I got was that it would cost somewhere around $1.5m to move the highway away from Strauss Airstrip and to the left hand side, the eastern side. I am not sure how that particular amount of money came up. I realise that the pipeline would have to be put underground at certain places where the highway crossed it, but it does seem an awful lot of money. Be that as it may, I am quite happy to also go out and lobby our federal members to see if they would support funding to allow this highway to move to the eastern side.
I know the government is going to propose an amendment to what I put forward. I cannot support that whole amendment because the amendment also says that, in the case of additional Commonwealth funding, basically the government wants to put the duplication back where they originally asked for, back through Strauss Airstrip. I am quite happy to lobby the federal members because it is important. We really have to think more than just what is the easy way out and what might cost us a bit of money at this stage. What the government is saying in this amendment is that if we do not get the money from the Commonwealth we are still going to whack it through the middle of Strauss Airstrip. I say to the government: look laterally, look with a bit of vision. Are these airstrips worth more in the long run, even though it will cost them a bit more to put the highway on the other side? In the long run, won’t these be of more value to the Territory if we preserve them?
Even if we cannot always put a dollar sign on it - because heritage is not something you can always put a dollar sign on and I do not think you always should - isn’t it important that we maintain and remember those people who fought in the Top End? I believe it is really important. The day we start to treat these sites as just something you can run a road through, something you draw lines on maps as if they did not exist, is a very sad day.
This is one way we can honour the people; a practical way we can honour the people by preserving these sites and making the effort to make sure that we do not destroy these areas by putting the road carriage in the wrong place. We have to make that effort, and I hope the government and the opposition will support those moves.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I place on the record my general support for the thrust of the motion standing in the name of my good friend and neighbour of 20 years, the member for Nelson.
There are several significant sites across the Litchfield Shire, and in my electorate of Goyder. There are a number of airstrips. There are numerous diggings you can see. The member for Nelson has given examples of some of the sites that are close to the Bees Creek Primary School. There are a number of landowners who have underground bunkers on their land you can go into. You can see the names of the people and the medical staff who where there at the end of World War II. They have inscribed their names on the sides of these bunkers just before they left.
The particular airstrip which is the subject of this motion, the Strauss Airstrip, is a very well located in its exposure to the community. It is probably one of the better known airstrips. It is located right on the corner of the Stuart Highway and Cox Peninsula Road. It is one which has been utilised. There is not only the airstrip and the usual bunkers and some spits where planes and equipment were stored, there is also a cricket ground. Indeed, honourable members will no doubt recall the cricket matches which have been played there, organised by my colleague, the member for Nelson: ‘Anzac Day at the SCG’. You can see the signs up there when you go by. It attracts a good turnout of both local people from the rural area as well as those from Palmerston and the Darwin suburbs.
The Strauss Airstrip, along with the other airstrips in the Territory, does have a significant history. It was named after a man who died defending the Northern Territory. Indeed, it is the second of three roadside fighter strips. It used to be called the 27 Mile back in the old days. It was formed by members of the B and C Corps of the 808 English Aviation Battalion between 19 March and 22 April 1942. In this short time, this particular group of men and women created a strip of 5000 feet with about 2000 feet of taxiways and 12 dispersals or hard standings. The 8th Squadron of the United States Army Air Force, the 49th Pursuit Group was based at Strauss Airstrip from 28 April. The runways and taxiways were re-gravelled, and splinter pens and camouflage covers constructed by the No 1 MWS in September. The runway was sealed by them in October 1942. The No 76 Kitty Hawk Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force, was located there on transfer from Milne Bay. From February 1943, the field was used by the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Air Force Spitfire Squadrons.
The strip was named in honour of Captain A W Strauss, commanding officer of the 8th Pursuit Squadron of the United States Army Air Force. His squadron arrived in Darwin on 15 April 1942 and was immediately engaged in operations against the Japanese and Japanese aircraft over Darwin. Strauss was one of three airmen of the 49th Pursuit Group who was killed towards the end of April. He died having been shot down in his own aircraft and his aircraft crashed into Darwin Harbour on 27 April 1942. It is a significant site. It is a site of World War II significance. You can go today to see the enormous amount of work which had gone into constructing the strip, the taxiways and the 12 dispersals or hard standings.
There is a need, in my view, that more regard be paid to these type of sites. The logistics as to how you go about relocating the road, on what should occur first and some of the particulars contained in the motion put forward by the member for Nelson, I am not qualified to comment on. However, I understand there was another option to actually by-pass it to the right and the heritage area would be conveniently between. One of the options is, of course, the realignment and burial of the water pipeline along the existing highway and the continuation of the duplication on the eastern side of the existing highway. Ultimately, the goal would be to preserve this significant site.
I have listened carefully to what the member for Nelson said and the feedback that he got from the government at the briefing. I do not think anyone can reasonably criticise the Territory government for going to the federal government and seeking the funding. It is a national highway, it is a main road. But if that funding is not forthcoming is not an excuse for this arrogant Labor government to bulldoze this site and extend the duplification of the Stuart Highway through the middle of this heritage area.
There needs to be a vision; you need to have some gusto. Planning should occur but design work needs to be done as if the highway is going to exclude this important area. Then the question of funding, ‘Let us go to the federal government, let us try as hard as we can’. I can certainly undertake to lobby some of the federal members as well. However, if we are not successful there, then that is not the end of the matter and we have to look at other funding options which means funding it from our own Territory budget.
There is much material available for those honourable members who are interested in this particular site, the history offered, some of the cricket matches that were played there and also there is a lot of history about the men and women who gave their lives defending Darwin who were based at that strip. There is lots of material about how important heritage is. Heritage puts your life, our lives in perspective. Ultimately, the collective work of this generation forms a basis of the heritage for the next. Really, it was not so long ago that this site played a crucial role in the Northern Territory’s development.
Madam Speaker, I value my heritage. I support the motion and I commend the motion to honourable members.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I thank members for the debate and for the historical information. I also value my heritage. I have grown up in a heritage in which we respect the relics of the past, especially if these relics are associated with history of a country. Certainly, Strauss Airstrip is associated with the history of Australia during the World War II together with other airstrips like Livingstone and Hughes Airstrips.
However, I remind the member opposite that the government that drew the plans for the duplication of the highway was the former CLP government. Of course, the government did that, quite rightly, because of the expanding population of Darwin moving to the Berry Springs and Cox Peninsula areas, resulting in increased traffic with a significant impact on safety. These issues had to be addressed.
We have the problem of the Strauss Airstrip being very close to the Stuart Highway. Previously, the water mains were put above ground on the left side of the road as you move out from Darwin toward the Cox Peninsula Road. Lately, of course, Telstra laid the optical fibre cable between the line. Any expansion or duplication of the Stuart Highway to the left of the current alignment would have a serious impact on these services.
You are aware, of course, that duplication of the Stuart Highway is included in the Commonwealth-funded National Highway program at $3.5m, but the cost of the project is about $4.2m. The department has looked into the issue of duplication with possible duplication to the right or left of the highway. Duplication to the right will have an impact on Strauss Airstrip and would probably take about 50% of the airstrip. Duplication to the left will require burying of services - water and protection of the optical fibre cable - at a cost of $1.3m. In addition, it would impact on existing private properties that, in the end, would need provision for service roads, and another $200 000 would need to be found for acquisition and realignment. The total cost would probably come to $5.5m.
The problem we have is the Commonwealth government allocation is only $3.5m. That means we have to find the rest of it. It is very easy to sit here and say: ‘Find the rest of it from the Territory budget’. Which road would you like me to stop repairing? Which road would you like me to stop upgrading? Which bridge would you like me to stop constructing? Everything we do will require money from the Territory budget for roads. It has to come from somewhere because our resources are finite.
Madam Speaker, as the member foreshadowed, we are going to move an amendment. I move that all words after ‘that’ be omitted and insert in their stead:
the Commonwealth government be requested to provide the extra funding to allow the widening of the
Stuart Highway between Noonamah and Cox Peninsula Road to proceed on the eastern alignment to avoid
impact on the Strauss Airstrip, and that this funding be new funding to the Territory, not a substitution in
the National Highway program.
In the event that additional Commonwealth funding is not forthcoming, that the design of the highway widening
minimises the impact on Strauss Airstrip, and the history of the airstrip be recognised by appropriate interpretive
signage and tourist information.
If I may speak to the amendment, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
A member: Don’t we have debate on this?
Madam SPEAKER: You have foreshadowed it?
Mr Henderson: Yes, we foreshadowed the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. I thought you were moving it. Do we have any more speakers?
Mr VATSKALIS: I would like to speak on my amendment, Madam Speaker. I recognise …
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, a point of order! May we have a copy of that amendment so that we can understand what the minister is proposing?
Madam SPEAKER: I thought you had it. Sorry.
Mr VATSKALIS: I recognise the concern that the member for Nelson has about the Strauss Airstrip, and I share them too. A few years ago there was a proposal for subdividing the Hughes Airstrip, which would have a large block of land for people who had their own aircraft, and they would be utilising the airstrip for taking off and landing in the same way people use marinas. I remember very well - I was a part of the 13th Squadron City of Darwin - that we strongly opposed it. We wrote to the then minister and, fortunately, the then minister accepted our arguments and decided not to proceed with the subdivision because of the historical value of the Hughes Airstrip. As I said, the last thing I want is something like the Strauss Airstrip to disappear under another two or three lanes of Stuart Highway.
At the same time, I have concerns about the Commonwealth government. I have already written to the minister and asked him to reconsider the funding of the project. I have advised that we would like to go on the eastern side for duplication of the Stuart Highway, not on the western side, and we would like the federal government to fund that. It is very important that we maintain the heritage of our Territory. I can table the letter I sent to the minister. However, what are we going to do if we do not get the funding? Are we going to compromise the safety of the travelling public, are we going to compromise the safety of the people who, at the moment, are using a single lane highway, or are we going to expand somehow by minimising the impact on Strauss Airstrip? If you notice in my amendment, I do not say that we will actually expand Stuart Highway only at Strauss Airstrip, I am saying minimising the impact on Strauss Airstrip.
My department has different designs - either partial burial of the pipelines so we can divert them, or find another way so that the impact on Strauss Airstrip will be minimum. I will certainly be consulting with the member for Nelson and the member for Goyder. Incidentally, the Strauss Airstrip is not on the corner of Stuart Highway and Cox Peninsula Road, it is just past Noonamah on the right. It is another airstrip of which I do not remember the name that is actually near Cox Peninsula Road.
The point is that this government intends to maintain our heritage. We are not going to pour bitumen or concrete on top of our heritage. We will find any possible way to provide a proper realignment so that the Strauss Airstrip will not be affected, or if it is affected, there will be a minimal effect upon it. We will provide signage and tourist information for the public if they visit the airstrip, and the other strips, with information about the role the airstrip played in World War II.
I seek the support of members from both sides of the House and Independents to lobby the federal government so we can get a good result and get the extra funding to proceed with the changes to the Stuart Highway.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it was very disappointing that the minister spoke for eight minutes and gave us the excuse that, unless the Commonwealth gives him the money, bad luck. He spoke as an engineer rather than as a heritage conservator, which is another part of his job.
We stand in this House in a sacred site. Out there, there is a plaque on the floor that commemorates what happened on 19 February 1942 in this place, on this very site.
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: It is very sacred, and if they keep yelling, Madam Speaker, I will have to talk louder and louder.
On this site, Australia was attacked for the first time. Anybody whom I take to show that plaque is pretty much moved. When my colleague, the member for Goyder, spoke about Strauss, a man from thousands of miles away coming to protect and defend us here, I could not helped be moved by that short recounting of history. I believe that has to be at the foremost in our minds. We are talking about significant sites that are precious to the memory of people who lived in this place at that time, and I count my family among those, and Australians in general.
What happened here was something that should be remembered by everybody who lives in the Northern Territory. What happened here was, people who were Dutch, English, American, and Aboriginal people, fought on this site to protect us and to give us these organs of democracy that we proudly stand up and have the freedoms that we have now.
Therefore, let us not diminish this as just a little sheet of bitumen that is now ageing and 60 years old, laying in the scrub unused, and able to be trampled on because its significance is one of those things that is fading into the dim past. We should put the spotlight on these facilities. I hope we hear from the Tourism Minister because, in this part of Australia we present – and I am glad that the member for Nelson brought that into his speech – unique experiences that people can come here and see. We say: ‘Look at our natural heritage, at what you can do here. Look at our harbour: you can go down and catch a fish just out of the harbour’. We showed cricketers how to do it and they proudly paraded these photos and they will go back and show another 1000 people this, and it will be something that brings people here.
Look at our World War II heritage. There are very few places in Australia that can proclaim the World War II heritage that this place has, and it is scattered everywhere. I guess that is why it has become an issue that is not at the foremost of our mind. We know that we can go down to Buffalo Creek, put the boat in to catch a few crabs and there is a bunker sitting there - a bunker, a machine gun pillbox, which was used by people who were waiting for waves of Japanese to come up Casuarina Beach. That is not that long ago.
Therefore, these are issues that should be paraded. They are issues that should be given a status to attract people to this place to revel, relish and commemorate the history that comes from here. They are things that should move us to speak about in this House. It is not just a matter of: ‘Oh, there are five strips down the highway, or there are six here’. Go and have a look at those strips. As the member for Nelson said, go in the evening and sit on those strips and just imagine. Those young men were younger than pretty much anybody in this parliament. They had come from a long way away and they were sitting there expecting the imminent arrival of vast numbers of the enemy, and they were reminded of that because they were strafed on numerous occasions. Have a look at the Fenton Strip. The Fenton Strip was never attacked but there is hardly a blade of grass coming through there. It is brilliantly engineered, it is a piece of war memorabilia that you can have a look at - there are no fences keeping you out, there is no admission fee, there is nothing to say: ‘Please do not pillage this site’. It is still commemorated by people who go there for the sacredness that it conveys.
We have to be careful with just coming up with an engineer’s solution: the best way is straight through the site. Why? ‘Because I have a plan that says it is the best way, and you cannot have a bend in a road …’ and blah, blah, blah, ‘… you have a pipeline here’. These are not insoluble issues; these are issues that can be solved. Okay, the minister has said it is going to cost him a few bucks. He gave us this threat: ‘If I do this I am going to pull it out of another road somewhere else’. Well, they are called government priorities. Every day, the government has to sit down and work out its priorities. They have had some pretty shonky ones. If they really want me to sit down and go through their budget papers next time, I will show them how they can fund it. I will easily show them how they can fund it; I will find $100m for them …
Mr Henderson: Like you funded Health?
Mr DUNHAM: Health? Health is a good one, Madam Speaker. I am glad the minister interjects because in Health, we know, for instance, that they spent $20m more than they thought they were going to spend and we know that they are cutting services. So, there is a little conundrum here, and it could be to do with the managerial and financial capacity of the minister. So, if you want me to fix that one, I will fix that one too!
If you have problems managing money, and you cannot preserve an icon sacred site of this nature, there is something wrong with you. I will tell you another thing: if you think that there is not a great feeling of preservation and conservation among the populace in this place, you are wrong.
Turn up early in the morning on 19 February next year, and do a walk around and talk to the people. Have a look at the plaques built on that Cenotaph over there, and have a look where those people came from and how diverse they were. If you do that, you will get a notion of what the member for Nelson is trying to tell us. He is not trying to tell us that he plays some quaint cricket game in commemoration, that this is some little trick to embarrass the government. He is trying to say: ‘This is a plea to have this as a priority in your decisions’. He is saying: ‘Please consider this as important’. I would support him on that.
Those people who lived in this place, and had to be evacuated - and there are plenty of them around; all of us have friends and family who were in that situation – go and have a look at the people who sat there and fired the machine guns trying to protect this place, and have a look at that site. I will tell you what, if you are not moved to reconsider, you have no heart. If you really want to allow the erosion of this asset, where will you stop? The asset is all pervading, it has the potential to turn a buck. If you are that crass that you are only driven by money, turn it into a tourism product.
Mr Ah Kit: You can speak.
Mr DUNHAM: We can speak. Now, there is a good interjection. Yes, we can speak. Do you know why we can speak? Because on the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin we invited people from around the world to come to these sites. Like the member for Goyder said, some of the sites were known as the 27 mile, the 133 mile. People came from other places. The road had been realigned, the signs were not there to look for turn-offs, and we sign posted them. We invited significant numbers of people from the United States to come back to this place with their families. We produced maps for the occasion, we commemorated with books and various other memorabilia, and do you know what? We were the winners, because over there in our State Library we now have a significant collection. Over in our archives, in our museum, we have a significant collection of war memorabilia that has come back to this place.
So, if you really want to be crass, if you just want to talk about the bottom line and you want to talk about money, this could turn you a buck. Think about it. Think about what you could do with preserving and conserving some of these sites, sign posting them adequately, telling Australians what happened here, because many of them do not have a clue. We often take visitors around and they are horrified at the extent the war affected this place. It is something that we can do as a domestic and international tourism product if that is what motivates you.
But for starters, why don’t you just listen to what the member for Nelson is trying to say? He is trying to say there is a problem here and there is a solution. The solution is pretty easy even for an engineer and it might cost you a couple of bucks. Have a look at your priorities and please consider it. I support him wholeheartedly and I thank him for bringing a matter like this to the attention of this parliament.
Dr BURNS (Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I speak not only as the Minister for Tourism but also the Minister for Environment and Heritage. Yes, this is a very important issue and it is important for a whole range of reasons. There is no doubt that the rest of Australia is probably fairly unaware of what happened here during the war. Like the member for Drysdale, I conduct people around Darwin and meet people, and they are amazed at the fact that Darwin was a frontline and exactly what happened here and the loss of life.
I also speak with a personal perspective because, as I said in my maiden speech, my father was stationed here with the Air Force in the war. He was a flight sergeant attached to the reconnaissance squadrons. He did not actually talk about the war all that much and that was the mindset of a lot of the servicemen and servicewomen and civilians in those days. Certainly, the Australian government did not want to alarm the rest of Australia by what had happened in Darwin and many of those servicemen and servicewomen were told that they were not to speak about it all that much. My father served in New Guinea as well and he really did not like to talk about the war all that much. I am standing up here as a minister but I am also trying to think of his perspective and the perspective of the other servicemen who served with him. He was here for the bombing of Darwin and he did not speak to me about that. He did speak to my mother about it. On the inside of his wardrobe, every morning when he got dressed, there was a press piece about the bombing of Darwin. So he never forget. He did not speak about it but he never forgot.
It is a very important issue and I will try to speak to it very seriously and to the issues that the member for Nelson has raised. It is a matter of fact that there are 15 World War II airstrips close to the Stuart Highway and three of these were fighter strips in the Litchfield Shire. The majority of these airstrips were built on or close to the Stuart Highway and that was done for a very good logistic reason. The fact is that fuel and supplies were accessible and aircraft could be serviced and fueled. The very fact that were built close to the highway is the reason that they are now under threat. Given some of the history I have just spoken about, in that there was not a lot of acknowledgement of the extent of the threat that Australia and Darwin, in particular, was under during that time, probably the strips were not valued over time in the way that they should have been. Many of them have suffered fairly severe damage over the years. The members for Nelson and Goyder have outlined some of that damage. We are dealing with history here; we have to value that history. We have to acknowledge what has happened in the past.
As I have said, the three fighter strips near the highway in the rural area have suffered much damage due to their proximity to the highway. There has been increasing use of the highway over the past 60 years and this has had a very negative impact on these strips. While remnants of the runways remain, Sattler has had a school built on it, and most of Livingstone, unfortunately, has been ploughed in. Strauss has also been severely degraded in this time, and most of the infrastructure east of the airstrip has been destroyed and to the west of the site has been used as a gravel pit. The most complete remains of Strauss, which are the aircraft revetments, the taxiways and some structures associated with maintenance and accommodation, lie to the west of the damaged runway.
Strauss Airfield is a proposed heritage place. That is, the Heritage Advisory Council has determined that it does have a special significance to the Northern Territory. The Heritage Advisory Council has also flagged that it will recommend to the minister, that is me; that it be declared a heritage place. The Heritage Advisory Council resolved to recommend a Heritage Declaration of a part of Strauss Airfield in 2000. Advertisements were placed in the newspaper and comments were sought from the public. In a perfect world, I would prefer the whole site listed for heritage protection, but my advice is that the highway has already encroached upon the airstrip and that there are some question marks over the heritage value. Part of this advice comes from Mr Alford, who chairs the Heritage Advisory Committee, and most members would be aware that Mr Alford is an expert, a war historian who has quite an interest in this particular area.
I expect that the Heritage Advisory Council will be providing its advice to me shortly, and I will be then in a position to consider heritage listing. Heritage declaration will ensure key elements of the airfield will be conserved. In addition to the declaration, it is proposed that substantial interpretation of the airfield will be undertaken to mitigate the impact of the highway duplication. As the member for Nelson pointed out earlier, there is really a dearth of signage and information there for those travelling along the highway now. These sites do require a lot of interpretation. The objective of the interpretation is to create excitement about the history of aerial combat over Darwin - I am not sure whether my father shared the same excitement, but it is a very significant part of our history - and to educate the community about a largely hidden history.
DIPE and the Northern Territory Tourist Commission are working together to develop a strategy for conservation interpretation of a range of World War II sites in the Territory that will provide a value-added product to the tourism market.
I agree with the member for Drysdale that these are sacred sites. They are very important to our history, to our memories, to the nation as a whole. I support the amendment proposed by the minister because Australia has to recognise the importance of these sites. It was these men and women from Australia and overseas who fought and died to protect Australia. As Sir Zelman Cowan said when he came to the 60th Commemoration of the Bombing of Darwin, they really did not know. They expected that there was going to be an invasion fleet over the horizon after the first bombing of Darwin. Things were pretty tough here, as everyone knows, and there were many lives lost.
The Commonwealth of Australia, along with the Territory government, needs to recognise that. I will certainly be supporting approaches to the Commonwealth. I trust that members opposite will be. The member for Nelson has said that he will be, and that is why I support this amendment, Madam Speaker.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is interesting listening to this debate. We have the member for Nelson who, quite forcefully, outlined the reasons why this airstrip should be preserved. The minister responsible agreed with the importance of preserving this particular airstrip, but had difficulty with finding the funds that are involved in that preservation and, if the funds were forthcoming from the Commonwealth, therefore it would appear it would have his support. He has written to the federal minister asking for those funds, but has already decided that, in the event that the federal minister does not provide those funds, then the road will go straight through Strauss airfield, and what was an airfield will now become a sign. As the member for Nelson said, that decision would also impact directly on Sattler airfield pretty soon after that as the duplication continues.
We then heard that the minister responsible for heritage is considering declaring this particular airfield a heritage site. In fact, he went even further, he used the words, ‘a sacred site’, and we know how sacred sites are treated in the Northern Territory; that is, that before there is any impact on any sacred site in the Northern Territory, there are considerable hoops that have to be gone through, not the least being that those directly affected by the degradation of that sacred site themselves have some say in it.
It seems to me there is a pretty simple solution to this. In the short term, the first thing is that the minister responsible for the Environment and Heritage should not pre-position his position in advance of getting advice from his own Heritage Advisory Council. It would be instructive to us all, I would imagine, that the opinion of the council be well and truly advised to us all as to the significance or otherwise of preserving Strauss airfield in its entirety, notwithstanding the cost that may be involved in engineering solutions because of the importance of it as a heritage site. That seems to me to be the first step.
In fact, the minister has written to the federal minister, and he has tabled the letter in which he said, in part:
- … as part of wider review of World War II infrastructure, the airstrip, among other wartime relics,
is being reassessed in regard to its heritage significance.
It would seem that, if we are going to make a decision in this Chamber, the decision that you make in support of the amendment proposed by the government is premature in the very least, because it says in the event that additional Commonwealth funding is not forthcoming, that the design of the highway widening minimises the impact on Strauss Airstrip, that the history of the airstrip be recognised by appropriate interpretive signage and tourist information - which is code for saying: ‘We will put the road straight through the airstrip, and we will put a few signs up around the place to say that what was a sacred site is now a road’.
Therefore, I believe that the government could show its bona fides by agreeing that it is premature to object to the motion that the member for Nelson has provided. It is certainly premature to ask this House to agree to the amendment the government has provided. I would suggest that a further amendment might be provided to the motion that would say something along the lines of the fact that no further decision be made with regards to the destruction in part or in whole of Strauss airfield until the Heritage Advisory Council has advised the environment minister, and following that advice debate ensues further in this Chamber. That would be the proper approach.
If the government does not agree with that, it would seem to me that the government is hell-bent on simply going through nice words, agreeing with the sentiment but, in fact, has already pre-positioned itself on engineering advice to proceed with the road in accordance with the funding that has been allocated in the budget, which is essentially to destroy Strauss airfield.
It is an important debate. We all have our own experiences with regard to the destruction or otherwise of World War II sites and they have to be seen in context. The reality is that there are a number of airstrips – if we just take airstrips alone - around Australia that all have heritage value, whether it is wartime heritage value or not. I distinctly remember growing up as a child in Townsville where there were a number of airstrips that had World War II heritage, where bombers flew out of Townsville on World War II missions, and they are all gone. One by one, they have been destroyed because of the urban spread of Townsville. The decisions that were made were always piecemeal decisions but, at the end of the day, if one goes back to a place like Townsville and tries to find that sort of heritage which existed when I was a child, it is all gone.
The government seems to be able to run an argument that says: ‘If you, CLP, did not interfere with the destruction of the Royal Darwin Hotel, therefore it is okay for us …
Mr Henderson: No, the Hotel Darwin.
Mr BURKE: … the Darwin Hotel, therefore, you have no right to make any comment in this debate and we have every right to destroy another heritage site based on that particular precedent’, which is a pretty fallacious argument.
The argument should be: where are the heritage sites that we have now in the Northern Territory? If we look in Darwin and the greater Darwin area, I do not believe you can point too many fingers at the CLP government. One of the tourism experiences that many people see here is of interpretive signage and preservation which has all been provided by a CLP government, as the member for Drysdale said, going as far as large events that include commemorating the bombing of Darwin every year, with a major event that happened at the 50th anniversary which resulted in all of that interpretive signage all the way up and down the Stuart Highway, including Strauss Airfield and other airfields. Therefore, we would point to a pretty proud record in that regard.
In my contribution, I believe that the decision to not agree with the motion is premature. Certainly, at the very least, I hope that the government would wait until the decision from the federal minister is forthcoming. I would have thought, in advance of that federal decision, the government could reinforce his deliberation by declaring the whole of Strauss airfield a heritage site, because that should be communicated to the federal minister and once he has that in his hands - that the Heritage Council has advised that this airfield should be preserved as a heritage site; it is important for Territorians - the federal minister then would be probably saying to himself: ‘Well, maybe I do have a greater responsibility in terms of assisting with funding’.
It is just a case of rolling over too early too easy. Do not let the engineers decide how to do things; engineers are killing this place in many respects. You cannot drive into town on that highway anymore without it taking 10 or 15 minutes more; this is what average Territorians are saying. If you are on Wishart Road now, you are blocked up. If the government has a priority in duplicating roads, when is Tiger Brennan Drive going to go out to the Palmerston interchange? Those roads are choked at the moment. If there is any prioritive funding get Tiger Brennan out there so that people can get to work faster, because Wishart Road is congested. Wishart Road is going to become more congested. People on the Stuart Highway are taking 15 more minutes to get to work and they are held up by red lights. The latest lights that they have put in there, if you look at the highway, there are black skid marks everywhere, and there are dangerous accidents about to occur, and occurring regularly, on those roads - all through great engineering designs.
The member for Nelson has a very good point that, on this particular issue, we have an obligation not only to our own present generation but to future generations to see what we can do to preserve Strauss airfield. I can tell you, I for one – and I would doubt that any member of this Chamber would not feel some pang of sentiment. When you drive up that highway to Darwin and you look back and see Strauss airfield, you feel a sense of sadness, because I do. You feel a sense of sadness that there is heritage gradually being eroded away, and you cannot deny it. If you want to get a great sense of elation, go out there as I did last Anzac Day and play a game of cricket on that cricket oval, and see the young soldiers playing there and the sense of pride that they get to be playing on a cricket pitch that is part of our heritage.
It is an important part of our heritage. It should be protected. It is premature to suggest that these things are all dependent on a federal minister’s decision because they are not. There is an enormous amount of work that the government can still do to meet the member for Nelson’s requirements.
To assist in this debate I propose a further amendment to the government’s amendment. If you look at the government’s amendment, second paragraph: ‘In the event that additional Commonwealth funding is not forthcoming …’, my amendment proposes that we delete all words after ‘not forthcoming’ and insert:
- the Territory government will fund the duplication of the Stuart Highway on the eastern side of the existing highway.
The new amendment reads, and says in essence, lobby the Commonwealth government. I would suggest the environment minister gets the place declared quickly and fully declared, lobby the federal government with that additional weight of argument, but in the event that the Commonwealth funding is not forthcoming that the Territory government will fund the duplication of the Stuart Highway on the eastern side of the existing highway. I propose that amendment, minister.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak in this debate, but …
Mr Burke: Move the amendment, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: We already have an amendment before the Chair before I can do yours.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, in speaking to my colleague’s amended motion, I have to say the sentiment in this House in the debate is that we all want the same thing. We all want to find a way of protecting Strauss Airstrip. However, there is the reality of the capacity of the Stuart Highway to continue to provide a safe access through that area for the travelling public. We do have an absolute obligation to provide safe roads in the Northern Territory. At the moment, we can see our road toll is far too high, and there are many contributing factors to our road toll, but certainly the state of our roads is one of the contributing factors we have to continue to pay attention to.
In the mix of the road funding in the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth government has an absolute obligation in terms of national highways to fund those roads. It is an obligation of the federal government to maintain the Stuart Highway. In regard to the money that is required to provide safe access to the travelling public on a national highway, that financial obligation rests with the Commonwealth government. That is why my colleague is putting this amendment; to put pressure on the Commonwealth government to meet its obligation to the Northern Territory for funding of our roads. We already see the Commonwealth government in terms of Roads to Recovery funding continuing to shortfall the Northern Territory, and it has for many years now to the tunes of - I think it is about $20m a year in shortfall in funding that other states get under the Roads to Recovery programs that we do not get. So, it is already saving $20m a year in the Northern Territory by not meeting its obligations that it meets in every other state. Why would we as a government just roll over and let the Commonwealth continue to fail in its obligation to fund roads in the Territory on an equitable basis to the same way that it does to all other states?
The call from the government is not that we are hell-bent on destroying the Strauss Airstrip. The call from the government is there are engineering solutions that can be provided to this conundrum. However, it is a national highway and this obligation falls fairly and squarely with the Commonwealth government. I urge members on the other side of the House who proudly proclaim to be an independent Territory party but also proudly sit in the House of Representatives - the member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, proudly sitting in the House of Representatives with the government of the day, the Liberal/National Party Coalition; we have Senator Scullion, as an independent CLP politician proudly sitting with the National Party, caucusing with the National Party in the National Party rooms, all part of their budget processes. So, we have the independent CLP party, the proud Territory party, proudly sitting with both the National Party and the Liberal Party, having positions of influence. I urge members on the other side to use those positions of influence to get the Commonwealth government to meet its financial obligation to the Northern Territory, not only in terms of the road, but protecting this country’s World War II heritage, which is in large part a Commonwealth responsibility, given in wartime the absolute responsibility and reality of the Commonwealth government making decisions about the Northern Territory.
There are many reasons to support my colleague’s motion. If we were to accept the Leader of the Opposition’s nonsensical amendment that we go to Canberra and say: ‘Please, can we have a bit more money but if you say no, we will do it anyway’. What sort of pressure or leverage does that have with the Commonwealth? No wonder the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Chief Minister, left behind such an awful mess if that is the way he negotiated. He would negotiate from a position where you have rolled over before you even start negotiations. No wonder we are in the mess we are. In any part of the negotiating process, you have to have some leverage. You must have a bargaining position. You do not start with the position of: ‘We would like this but if you say no, this is what we will do’. Why are you there in the first place? It is an absolutely nonsensical amendment.
What we have to do, in this House, is show the Commonwealth government - and we have argued roads and road funding in this House for many, many years - that it has a responsibility to all Australians, not just in National Party seats on the eastern seaboard, but to all Australians and particularly in the Northern Territory, to meet its funding obligations for roads in this part of the country.
We are not second class citizens. If you have any influence at all, members on the other side of the House, you should use that influence with Senator Scullion and Mr Tollner to get them to do a job for the Territory and secure this money. We will give you credit for it. It would be good to see some outcome, to see some benefit of having a CLP member in the House of Representatives who can come back to the Territory and say: ‘Yes, I took this motion from the Territory parliament, I have had a win, here is the money’. That would be a fantastic outcome and that is what we should be arguing.
That is the challenge for members opposite, not the crocodile tears, the pious statement from the member for Drysdale. I took his words down. He was around the Cabinet table. The member for Drysdale said, and I believe I have the quote here: ‘… significant sites precious to the memory of people who lived here’. I cannot let the opportunity go by. He was in the Cabinet room, he was part of the government that allowed the Hotel Darwin to be demolished, at two o’clock in the morning …
Ms Lawrie: Not the Royal Darwin Hotel.
Mr HENDERSON: No, not the Royal Darwin Hotel. I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition has been, but he did not even know the name of the most significant heritage site in this city that was loved by not only the tens of thousands of people who live in this city but the hundreds of thousands, probably millions of people who visited Darwin over the years who loved that hotel. There was barely any public debate on it.
The Leader of the Opposition has the absolute hypocrisy to say engineers are killing the place, absolutely denouncing a whole profession. We had one engineer’s report about concrete cancer on the Hotel Darwin - one engineer’s report. It was not tested, no second opinion sought. Five minutes later, the most significant heritage site in the Northern Territory, I would argue, certainly in Darwin, demolished overnight. Where was the then Minister for Heritage? Where was he? He disappeared out of town and left it up to the knuckle man, the member for Katherine, to make the decision. He rolled over totally. So the pious, sanctimonious claptrap that we have heard from members opposite today is, to me, offensive.
On this side of the House, yes, we want to protect the Strauss Airstrip, but we have a responsibility to the travelling public to ensure our roads are safe in the Northern Territory. This government will do all it can to protect the Strauss Airstrip, but the Commonwealth government has to come to the good and accept its responsibility. If members on that side of the House had any influence at all - why Territorians would even bother sending a CLP rep to Canberra if they have no influence – they should secure some money for the Stuart Highway, which is a federal obligation and responsibility, to save the Strauss Airstrip. There is a real test for the member for Solomon and the Senator who sits with the National Party.
We will continue to negotiate, and lobby and leverage the federal government to accept its responsibilities to the Northern Territory. I would hope and accept that the opposition would use its influence within the Liberal/National Party Coalition to secure this funding, and to support the opposition’s amendment that we will ask for the money but then roll over and fund it - that is absolutely nonsensical and is not in anyway a bargaining position or a negotiating position that you could take to the federal government.
I totally appreciate the sentiment and the way that the member for Nelson has brought this issue to the House. I appreciate his intentions as being totally honourable and legitimate. However, for members on the other side, when for many years in government they have seen those airstrips deteriorate and be totally neglected, to then bounce in here and say, ‘We will do everything possible to save it’, well, you have had the runs on the board. Territorians will never forget the Hotel Darwin, and anything that the opposition has to say on the value of heritage will always be clouded by that shameful day when the Hotel Darwin was destroyed - well, night actually, Joh Bjelke-Peterson would have been proud of you - and will remember that shameful night, with barely a finger lifted to stop those engineers from killing the place, as the Leader of the Opposition stated so offensively earlier.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I add a few comments because the debate has shifted somewhat to an area that I am quite fond of. Frankly, I will build a picture for honourable members in this House so that they can understand exactly what the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure’s approach to this particular issue has been.
I recently posed a question, which I will pose for honourable members in this House today: what is the fundamental difference between a subatomic particle and the minister’s arguments for road funding? The answer, of course, is that subatomic particles carry more weight. The long and the short of it is that the minister had an opportunity, through budget Cabinet, to argue for proper roads funding in the Northern Territory - roads funding to achieve protection of heritage sites, in this instance; and to protect roads throughout the Northern Territory. The minister’s arguments have fallen on the deaf ears of his Cabinet colleagues.
The problem is that his Cabinet colleagues now have to go through the process of having to cover for his inability to convince them that the Northern Territory road network has to be protected. So much so, that we are now finding our roads, not only a joke inside the Northern Territory, but a joke nationally. I was mortified to hear the Today show presenter, Steve Liebman, the other day, inviting people to go to the Garma Festival – a very important festival in the Arnhem Land region – but the problem was that he described the road as being pot-holed. That is a shortcoming in the Northern Territory roads network.
I noticed in the Centralian Advocate a couple of days ago a headline: ‘Calls to close road to Kings Canyon’, and I thought, ‘Where does this come from?’ As I read the article, I discovered that there are people who live at Kings Canyon who are asking for a road to be shut down because it is in such poor condition - such woefully and abysmally poor condition - and there is apparently no money at all to protect those particular roads.
The minister has also put signs up on the Plenty Highway. This is another road which is under his control, and those signs warn of 100 km of bulldust ahead. So long have those signs been there that the red ink on the word ‘danger’ has faded into illegibility. You can barely read the word ‘danger’ on those signs. This minister’s response to this particular roads issue is once again saying: ‘I do not have the money to do the diversion, I do not have the money to get around this road, so my response is going to be: do not move, nobody say anything or the heritage site gets it’.
This debate is a reflection of this minister’s inability to obtain funding for proper roads maintenance and, secondly and much more importantly, his inability to successfully do the job. If you think about it, this matter has been sitting on the Notice Paper for quite some time. I believe that the member for Nelson in the last General Business Day had this matter placed on the Notice Paper. The minister had all this time to address this problem, to talk to the member for Nelson, to find ways around it. Today, we find a letter from Mr Vatskalis to the Minister for Transport and Regional Service, John Anderson.
The interesting thing about this situation is that the minister points out that this heritage site is in danger and the like, and he looks at the Wednesday of the General Business Day and thinks: ‘Well, I do not have that much to do on this occasion; it is their day they can have their rave and we can ignore it’. Well, lo and behold, this morning he wakes up and goes: ‘Oh golly, there is something that I might be criticised for’, so he fires off a quick letter to Hon John Anderson. When is that letter dated? Oh golly, 13 August 2003! This is the attitude of this minister; this is how he approaches the people of the Northern Territory and his job. He has to get to get off his bum and do his job effectively and properly …
Mr Kiely: It is your job; that is what you getting paid for.
Mr ELFERINK: It is what he gets paid to do! Unfortunately, he is unable to protect the heritage sites of the Northern Territory, the road network of the Northern Territory, or to lobby Canberra until he realises that: ‘Oh, my God, there is a trap in the General Business Day for me’. This is indicative of the lackadaisical slap-hazard way that he approaches his ministry. This minister is accident prone.
It is all very well to see the Leader of Government Business stand up in this House and try to accuse the member for Katherine of being the bully boy when he is trying to run cover for the minister who is limping along. If there is any minister who deserves funding for a black spot program it is this particular minister and the way that he runs his office, because any other zone that has that many accidents involved with it needs some black spot funding.
Madam Speaker, this minister is a disgrace. This minister has the incredible ability to totally make a mockery of his own ministry. He has failed dismally in pursuing road funding amongst his own Cabinet colleagues. He has failed dismally to try to cover his tracks today. He continues to fail dismally. What is his answer? Hold the sacred sites and the heritage sites of the Northern Territory to ransom.
Madam SPEAKER: We do have an amendment on at the moment. I would like to get this finalised before lunch. Does anyone wish to speak to the amendment?
Mr Baldwin: Has it been moved?
Madam SPEAKER: Has the minister put his amendment?
Mr Henderson: Yes, the amendment has been moved.
Madam SPEAKER: We have not voted on it though?
Mr Henderson: We have not voted on it; it has been moved.
Madam SPEAKER: So, we are talking to the amendment?
Mr Baldwin: Could I ask for clarification?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, seek clarification. We have two amendments at the moment. The minister has put his amendment so, if you want to speak to that amendment, you may. We have another amendment that is dependent on what happens to that amendment. So, we cannot speak on the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment at the moment.
Sorry, we will get a bit of advice.
The advice is that we need to move backwards. We are going to be putting the amendment to the amendment first, and then the amendment. You can only speak to the amendment. The amendment of the amendment.
Mr Wood: Which are the changes to the government’s amendment?
Madam SPEAKER: That is right.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): That is the way it used to run in councils, Madam Speaker, so it is a good way to do it.
When I listened to the debate, there is obviously some politics in it, which you cannot avoid. There are also a lot of people across both sides of this parliament who agree that the Strauss Airstrip and the other airstrips are important for heritage. And that is what we should keep in mind here. I said earlier that I did not support the government’s amendment because I did not support the section they added into the end. Then the Opposition Leader added a piece to that which I would support. I did hear the Leader of Government Business saying this will not give you any leverage, but if you read the government’s last paragraph that will not give you any leverage either because you are saying that you are going to do it anyway.
I do not see that as an argument. I see the problem with the government’s second paragraph is that you are not going to put the road on the eastern side of the existing Stuart Highway. You are going to find some other way of doing it. Unless I know what that some other way of doing it is, I cannot support it. I am not going to support something I do not know; I do not have the design of this highway widening which minimises the impact to Strauss Airstrip. At least, with the opposition’s amendment, I know that we will stick to, come hell or high water, that we are going to duplicate the highway on the side which is what I am promoting. I do not get it from the government’s amendment. I just get that they will put it down on a particular alignment which will have minimal impact on the Strauss Airfield. If you ask me to vote for one or the other I will have to vote for the amendment which is close to where I am trying to push for in the first place.
Madam Speaker, it is a passionate thing with me. It is not just an overnight thing. For a long time when I was on Litchfield Shire Council, way back when I think the government had the 50th anniversary, I remember the member for Goyder’s father promoted the concept of putting those small signs which are probably all now well and truly souvenired of the 1 Mile, 2 Mile, 3 Mile, 4 Mile. They went right down the highway to Manton Dam. They were just little things that reminded people who were visiting of where they were in relationship with the new highway. They knew that they had been at the 11 Mile, but with changes to the highway could not tell. That was one little thing.
I also remember that, for a long time, Litchfield Shire Council pushed for the preservation of the old railway line. To the credit of the previous government, we have a bicycle path down as far as Palmerston. Not to their credit is that in some cases the odd steel bridge was removed; for some reason some of those were replaced with concrete culverts. I still, for the life of me, cannot work out why those old steel bridges could not have remained. After all, there are only bicycles going over top of them. In some cases they disappeared and that was sad. I still believe we should continue the bicycle path. I know that the minister probably has a letter saying here he comes again with the bicycle path. That bicycle path - I have not put it down there just because I want people to have exercise. It was a way of preserving heritage in a useful manner.
It was a way of keeping the alignment alive. It was a way of preserving bridges. It was a way of remembering World War II. That railway line was extremely important during the war. If you get the old World War II maps, you will see where fuel and ammunition were off-loaded. I know the Minister for Environment and Heritage mentioned the importance of the Stuart Highway. It was also off-loaded because the railway lines went past these airstrips. They had ammunition and they had troops on the railway lines.
The member for Goyder mentioned the cricket pitch. It was accidental, I suppose, that I came across it. But it was not accidental why, as president of Litchfield Shire, that we tried to develop that day. It was not about a ‘Gerry Wood’ day. There were several reasons why we tried to promote that day. One is that Litchfield Shire does not have a centre like Palmerston and Darwin, yet we have the Robertson Barracks, the main area for the Army in the Litchfield Shire. So we could not very well give the army the keys to the city, simply because we did not have a key to the city. But there was one way we could appreciate the importance of having the army in our shire and in the Northern Territory, and that was to invite them to a President’s XI versus the Army cricket match.
It was also done as a wake-up call; basically to say we are playing a game of cricket on a cricket pitch that was built during the war. Those people who built that cricket pitch, as the Opposition Leader said, were young people who went to other places and probably died and never returned. There is an enormous amount of history, and it is emotional sometimes when I have been there. We sing the national anthem. You stand there with soldiers and acknowledge that the army was there 60 years ago, as it is now, and young people fought.
If you read the information about Strauss, you have to say what a brave man. He came from somewhere in America. I would love to find out where his relatives are because I would love to invite his relatives to a cricket match on Anzac Day, even though they probably know nothing about cricket. The history is that some bloke came from the other side of the world, fought the Japanese in a Kitty Hawk and was shot down and killed over Darwin Harbour. When you stand there, you realise that it was pretty good for people to do that. To me, that is one reason why we should be doing our darnedest to save these places.
All right, they are not great. I have to criticise the department and the way it looks after sites. Strauss Airstrip, at the moment, has a huge pile of gravel dumped on it. It is zoned Open Conservation under existing zoning. We were able to get a conservation zone over it, yet it is used for this mammoth pile of gravel. If you go past there you will see it dumped in the bush.
We have tended to disregard it, and I am hoping that this motion will start to re-ignite a little passion about these places, and will tell departments that they are not a dumping ground for a bit of gravel and a bit of bitumen. We should be protecting them.
I know the Minister for Environment and Heritage and the Opposition Leader said we can have this as a heritage site, but one of the things in the Northern Territory Planning Scheme, which I will talk about later, is that there is a Heritage Zone. It does not take Einstein, or a dozen people with historical qualifications, to tell you that those four airstrips were built in about 1942, operated until about 1945, had planes take off from them – some of them never came back – there was action there, all the Ack-Ack gun emplacements are there for people to see. You could zone it Heritage under the NT Planning Scheme. I do not know why we could not use that zoning, even though it has not yet been approved; it certainly has the potential to cover these areas.
I do not think every site has to have a full 300-page report on why it constitutes heritage. Go to the library and look at some of the people who have already reported on those airstrips. I cannot think of the person’s name, but I have read the book. It tells you all the battalions, all the people who lived there and it maps out the sites. A lot of work has been done and whilst I congratulate Bob Alford, and I must ask the minister whether we can see that report, I do not think it needs Einstein to tell us that these places are valuable heritage.
If we are talking about the amendment to the amendment, I would support the amendment. I believe it most closely relates to my original motion, whereas the government amendment does not. The government amendment does not give me any comfort that Strauss will not disappear.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any more speakers in this debate?
Mr Dunham: That was the amendment to the amendment. I want to speak to the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Amendment to the amendment negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr DUNHAM: I will speak to the original motion.
Madam SPEAKER: If we are going to have further speakers, we will adjourn.
Mr Henderson: He has already spoken.
Madam SPEAKER: In that case, I suggest that we continue this after lunch.
Madam SPEAKER: We are continuing the motion we had earlier. We are at the stage where the minister has moved an amendment. I need to inform the member for Drysdale that he has already spoken. I am sorry, you are no longer eligible to speak; you spoke after the minister. The only people who can speak now are those who have not spoken previously.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Drysdale spoke to the original motion. We are now speaking to the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: He spoke after the minister had moved his amendment; I checked it with the Deputy Clerk.
Mr BURKE: He did not even move it. The amendment came after …
Madam SPEAKER: Well, you moved an amendment to the amendment, so the amendment must have already been there when the minister put it, because he did not speak again. What I am saying is: the advice I have been given by the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk is that the member for Drysdale spoke after the minister had moved the amendment, so he cannot speak again. Full stop, no more debate.
Mr DUNHAM: It is a point of clarification rather than a debate, Madam Speaker. I am merely asking that the minister chose not to move the amendment. He foreshadowed the amendment but he did not move it. So, I am asking if having voted on that amendment whether I can now speak to the original motion.
Madam SPEAKER: It is my understanding that the Leader of the Opposition then immediately moved an amendment to it. How could you move an amendment to an amendment if it was not moved?
Mr Baldwin: Well, he did not move it.
Madam SPEAKER: That is what I am saying. This is my understanding, this is what I have been advised by the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, the issue here is – and you would know full well - that if we only can address the amended motion, the government will win it on the numbers and the member for Drysdale cannot speak. We had a situation where there was some confusion. My amendment to the amendment was not even circulated by the staff because they felt, in the same way the original amendment was moved, that it was foreshadowed. In the interest of completing the debate the member for Drysdale should be given the opportunity to speak for the simple fact that he will not have any other opportunity.
Madam SPEAKER: I suggest the member for Drysdale seek leave.
Mr DUNHAM: I seek leave, Madam Speaker, and I can foreshadow that I will be very brief.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Leave granted.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is interesting in a debate of this type when it is brought on where it takes us. In this particular debate it has taken us to a point where in one very small debate about an airstrip alongside the Stuart Highway, we are able to see features of this current government and those features came through loud and clear in this debate.
The first one we saw was the feature of the government’s laziness. We saw the minister who was responsible, had a foreshadowing of a motion in this parliament in February and he took until this morning to bring that motion to his mind. He took until this morning and we know that by virtue of the letter that he tabled, that he discarded that entirely from his mind until such time as he was compelled to confront it by my colleague, the member for Nelson.
The second thing we saw was: ‘When in trouble, blame the CLP.’ Most people find this as a bit of a joke in the electorate. In fact, it often comes up in a jocular way and even Mr Wicking is aware that when the government is in trouble they say this is somehow the CLP’s fault. We saw that, too, with the contribution from the member for Wanguri where he sought to somehow say – and interjections from the person behind him, the member for Karama – when they said it is a CLP problem. We are talking about the future here; we are not talking about the past.
The third thing we saw was if the detail becomes difficult, we filibuster and introduce new data. So we went off on a great tangent about the Darwin Hotel. Now, I shall not introduce that into here because I have to be very specific to the motion. But if I am invited to by interjection I am happy to do it. But it is straying from the debate.
The fourth thing we found – and the member for Wanguri is very big on this – and that is the use of absolutes; when something is okay, it is not okay, it is the greatest. Something is not big, it is the biggest. He reinforces his debate by taking a step over the line. So when we talked about the Hotel Darwin – I shall not talk about the detail of the Hotel Darwin - he said it was the most significant heritage site in the Northern Territory. The absolute, the most significant heritage site in the Northern Territory was the Hotel Darwin. I have a list of all the declared places and objects here. There are a lot of declarations. In fact my colleague, the member for Daly, was responsible for many of these. I think he stands as a record amongst any minister of the Northern Territory to declare such sites and there are many here that would be familiar to members.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Drysdale said he would be brief. If he wants to table the document, that would be …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but you did say you were going to be brief, so get on with it.
Mr DUNHAM: I will be brief. I have only been a couple of minutes. I have only been three minutes. It is interesting that the member for Karama would like me to table the Northern Territory Heritage Register declared places and objects, and I shall, because the Heritage minister should know this. He should know his register but, in the event he does not, I will table it.
All I want to do is call out a few because if members in the House think that the building across the road named as the Hotel Darwin, which no longer exists …
Mr Henderson: Thanks to you guys.
Mr DUNHAM: … was the most significant heritage site in the Northern Territory – ‘absolutely’, he says – what do they think about the Administrator’s offices? The Alcoota fossil beds? The Darwin Botanic Gardens? Brown’s Mart, Fannie Bay Gaol, Newcastle Waters Township, the Town Hall Ruins?
If you are telling me that you believe the most significant site of heritage was the former Hotel Darwin, which was not listed, by the way - if you think it was that site, you know very little about the heritage in this place. That reinforces exactly the point the member for Nelson was trying to make. You do not know what you are talking about! If you think that this is some dinky little bit of bitumen beside the highway and has no significance, you do not understand about what you speak.
I will conclude on this point. We know about the laziness with the late letter; we know when in trouble blame the CLP; we know if the detail is difficult filibuster and introduce new data; and we know to use absolutes like ‘this is the most wondrous thing we have ever seen in our life’. The Chief Minister’s trip to Sydney was the best ever. The fifth thing we have found out is concern about things like heritage, seniors, under-privileged, is all platitudes. It is rubbish! When it comes from your side, you write it into policy documents, you give us glossies, but we know from my colleague responsible for women’s affairs that that has all disappeared from budget papers and off the horizon of the government. When it comes to heritage, we know that you are very long on rhetoric and very, very short on action.
If that is a falsehood, if you can demonstrate that heritage is an issue of major concern, you can actually do something about it: you can stop the platitudes and the rhetoric and move straight into action. The action has been foreshadowed by my colleague, the member for Nelson. It would be a very powerful demonstration of your bona fides about being concerned about matters related to heritage. For the edification of the member for Karama, I seek leave to table the Northern Territory Heritage Register, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to speak on my amendment. Madam Speaker, I …
Leave denied.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. Leave was not granted.
Mr Henderson: It was granted.
Mr Burke: It has to be unanimous. Sit down.
Mr Henderson: He was not in his seat, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Someone said no. Leave is not granted.
Mr HENDERSON: Division, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister can move a suspension of standing orders to allow him to address the amendment.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would allow my colleague, the member for Casuarina, to speak to the amended motion before the House.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I am amazed at the hypocrisy from the other side. To stand up now and praise the motion by the member for Nelson about Strauss Airstrip, the same airstrip that they have allowed in the past year to deteriorate by allowing the parking of semitrailers and road trains on it, by storing gravel and road material on it, by declaring the conservation zone and allowing a gravel pit to open on it. Do I have to mention any other places of significance?
Do I have to mention the Hughes aerodrome where the only thing they actually marked as significant was a sign at the end of the aerodrome and nothing else. I know that for a fact, because I have been there. I camped there; I went out for an exercise. If it was not for one sign, if you move more than 80 km per hour, you would not see it. There is nothing else to mark the significance of Hughes aerodrome. The member for Nelson said that there are signs there, but unless you know where they are, you cannot see them so you cannot read them so you will not understand what is there.
Of course, the Leader of the Opposition blamed the engineers. It was the engineers in the department under his government that drafted the duplication of this highway, and it is the Leader of the Opposition who complains to us and says about: ‘What about duplicating Tiger Brennan Drive?’. This is the same person who asked us to put $1.3m of Territory money into something that is clearly, fairly squarely a Commonwealth responsibility.
As for the letter that the member for Macdonnell wrote, he only signed it today. This is not the first letter. This is part of a series of contacts and letters to John Anderson that I have written, asking him to provide the money that he has not provided in the past few years to the Territory under the excuse of the Territory had not cooperated. We lose $20m every year. I wrote to him eight weeks ago; he has not even responded with an acknowledgement. The letter I sent today would not have gone today if he had provided us with the money, because then we would have enough money to duplicate the Stuart Highway.
Further to that, ‘Blame the CLP’. Why should we blame the CLP? There is no reason for it. I have a report in front of me about the Plenty Highway. The report takes kilometre by kilometre of the Plenty Highway and the first one says:
0 to 97.07 km, this is the sealed section. 97.07 km to 146.47 km, the gravel section is between the end of
the seal and the Atitjere community and there is more traffic than on other covered sections of the Plenty
Highway. The running surface was good after the grading, but only lasts for approximately two to three
weeks because of the amount of traffic travelling over it, and the gravel is very thin now. It seems there has
not been any significant gravelling done since 1994.
Do I have to go down further?
146 km to 160 km has not had maintenance for a number of years and the surface and the gravel is very thin
and unravels quickly after grading.
Why should I blame the CLP? For the simple reason, it was the CLP government in power in 1994, and the same in the past few years. You have developed a road network in Central Australia that you keep pushing roads, but you never put in any money for maintenance. As a result, roads in Central Australia are in very poor condition, and there is no way, without the assistance of the Commonwealth, we can provide funding to repair these roads.
The member for Macdonnell knows very well the condition of some of these roads, but the reality is, you put these roads in place. Seventy-five percent of the road network in Central Australia is gravel, not bituminised. You pushed roads, but you never put a dollar to maintain those roads, and today it is impossible to find the money to maintain these roads in an acceptable standard unless the Commonwealth comes to the party.
We put money in roads. We have committed money in roads, in repair and maintenance. We committed money to the Tanami Road, we committed money to the Mereenie Loop Road, that you never considered. And to come here today and say to us that you are the ones who maintained the heritage of the Territory is a joke.
What I propose with our motion is to request from the Commonwealth government extra funding to duplicate the highway and move the existing services so we do not have to touch Strauss Airstrip. However, if the Commonwealth comes to us without any money, we will find a way to duplicate the Stuart Highway with a minimal impact to the Strauss Airstrip. There is no way out. There is no way we can actually take money out of Territory roads to put to a road that is fairly and squarely the responsibility of the Commonwealth. It is not 2 bucks, it is $1.3m. It is a lot of money, it is a lot of kilometres for roads in the electorate of Macdonnell, it is a lot of roads in the electorate of Barkly, it is a lot of roads for Central Australia. They need urgent attention, and unless money is put in place, it cannot be attended to.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I was going to leave it to my colleague to sum up. I just find the reply by the minister then concerned in all of this a bit unusual. The fact that he cannot take any money out of his budget to realign the Stuart Highway is what he is basing his whole argument on. So, if the Commonwealth cannot give us the money, what he is saying - let us flip it around a bit - that he will impact on Strauss Airstrip, because he cannot take any money out of his budget. Let us broaden it a bit. Let us talk to the Treasurer. Let us say, ‘Treasurer, can we have a Treasurer’s Advance when we get the message back from Anderson?’ Perhaps Anderson will come back and say: ‘If this is a great concern to you, I will go you dollar-for-dollar’. He is locking himself in. What if John Anderson comes back and says: ‘I will go you dollar-for-dollar’? What is he going to say? He has said now in this House he cannot take the money out of his budget - no way. He is prepared to impact on a heritage site that is about to be listed; that is what he is saying. That is just not acceptable.
They have money; talk to the Treasurer; talk to the Chief Minister. Do not take it out of your budget if you reckon it is too tight. I do not believe you. Go and talk to Cabinet, and raise this issue. Ask the Treasurer for a Treasurer’s Advance. Wait until you get the answer from Anderson, by all means. Do not proceed any further until you have his answer. If you had written the letter when the motion was introduced, we would have the answer by now, one would be certain of that. However, if the answer comes back that (a), ‘No, I have not got the money’; (b), ‘I will go you dollar-for-dollar’ or something, then by all means you must ask your Cabinet. You must submit to your Cabinet that this is so important that you should not impact at all - one little bit - on Strauss Airstrip. That is what the member for Nelson is asking, and we fully support …
Mr Henderson: It is a Commonwealth road.
Mr BALDWIN: Don’t hide behind Commonwealth money!
Mr Henderson: Well, why should we fund National Highways? It is a Commonwealth responsibility.
Mr BALDWIN: What a lousy excuse! Where is your can-do attitude? Where is your do-ability? This useless mob on the other side - take some risks! Come on, get up and go. Take a risk; that is what he is saying. You are saying: ‘We will damage this heritage site at all costs’. At all costs; that is what you are saying, and you will not hear the last of this, I am sure.
I am sure the member for Nelson will make sure that the cricket match next year will be, perhaps, a rally to save Strauss Airstrip from your mismanagement and your inability to get off your bums and use your initiative, regardless of the dollars that come from Anderson or the Commonwealth.
Madam Speaker, this side fully supports what the member is trying to do. I am sure if this motion gets killed this will not be the last you hear of this issue.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am speaking to the amendment - I am a bit scared to at the moment. I will be brief as well. I congratulate the government for at least coming part of the way from a position which I thought was lost. I have been fighting this battle for a number of years with the previous government and with your government. However, I was happy when I was told that you were going to go to the federal government and ask for funds. But you added this bit on the bottom which leaves it wide open, because if you cannot go on the left side you can only go on the right side. The only thing on the right side is Strauss Airstrip and that is zoned Open Conservation at the present time.
The left hand side is the only way you are not going to affect the Strauss Airstrip, and that is what you should be aiming for. Do not put this bit on the bottom because, if the Commonwealth see this in Hansard, they will say just what the Leader of Government Business said: ‘We will not bother. They have another way of taking the road around the airstrip, so why bother?’ When you write to the federal government just say we need to adjust our application for funds because of heritage, and impress on them that there has been a change in the design. As the minister said, he is going to declare it; it looks like it is going to be declared a heritage site. That is pretty good reasoning. I cannot image the federal government wanting to be seen as a government that just allowed a World War II heritage site to be demolished by one of its own roads. Therefore, I believe you have a pretty good case if you take it that way. I would drop the bottom piece of your amendment off, because that actually weakens your case.
Just one other question that I need to ask - and I am not sure I am going to get an answer in this section. However, you did say that there was a service road required. I understand when you go out there you will see there is not enough room for a service road, and you said you would have to acquire land. I do not believe the Territory government needs to acquire any land because the blocks of land adjacent to the highway are all large blocks of land, except for some on Keleson Road. If any of the landowners there requested a subdivision, it would be quite appropriate for the department to ask for a road reserve to be left for a service road, which would be at no cost to the government. It could be a requirement; it has been done before. The way around that, basically, is if any subdivision occurs, then a service road - either a reserve or they actually build part of it - would be a requirement of the subdivision. If it is the case that you are adding the cost of that service road into $1.5m, and you are not, then it was one of the conditions when you were talking there, minister, when you said a service road was a difficulty. I believe you can get around that, and I have just said the way you can get around it.
Madam Speaker, I have said enough on this. One thing about this particular amendment - and I will finish now and maybe say a few words at the very end of this debate - is that I am glad it has brought both sides together, although visitors might wonder why, or wonder really if it happened. However, I honestly believe that both sides of parliament would like to protect Strauss Airstrip. I hope they protect all the four airstrips and the Minister for Tourism and for Environment and Heritage does consider the possibility of turning these into heritage parks where we will look after them for the future.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Litchfield Area Plan
Litchfield Area Plan
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move - That the government –
(a) withdraw the proposed new Litchfield Area Plan and zoning map using zones taken
from the draft Northern Territory Planning Scheme;
(b) replace it with a Litchfield Area Plan and zoning map using zones presently defined
in the 1992 Litchfield Area Plan; and
(c) notify all landowners individually whose land will be rezoned under the new Litchfield
Area Plan before it is declared.
The reason for this debate is not to knock the government on the head about its attempt to update the Litchfield land use objectives and Litchfield Area Plan but to highlight the fact that that in the process they have confused the matter. They have confused it, not only amongst themselves but they have confused the issues amongst people living in the area.
First of all you have to go back to the history. The Litchfield Area Plan has been developed over a fair period of time. They have been looking at it for five years at least. In the process, and this is one of the things that complicates it, about three years ago they brought out the Northern Territory Planning Scheme. The document was only handed out to a few people - I believe to MLAs and the Development Consent Authority members - and in recent times it has been handed out to the public and councils. This document has a new set of zones for the entire Northern Territory, which the government is looking at putting over the whole of the Territory. So people who buy a block of land in Litchfield Shire, under a certain zone, would in theory know that if they bought the same block of land in Alice Springs or Tennant Creek, it would be pretty well the same zone, same conditions with maybe some minor variations. That was coming out all the time while the Litchfield land use objectives were being looked at.
Now, over the last, I do not know how many years, the minister would tell me, but it is a fair amount of time, the government brought out what they called the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives. I believe there were about four copies of this. They were revised, revised, there was a draft put out, and then there was another draft because one of the maps needed upgrading. There were about four copies of this over quite a large period of time. They were brought out, people discussed them, I still have some major issues with it. Most blokes will not take any notice but I still reckon that we need some adjustments.
So this book, along with this map, which was highlighted in my office – it still has the Blue Tac - this is the Litchfield land use objectives map which the public has seen; it was approved by the government. From memory, that was put out late last year - I am losing track of time these days - and people saw that. The problem with this, of course, is this does not have detail in it in the sense that nobody knows what the changes to the zones will be. This is a conceptual map. It says roughly what is going to happen, but until you get a book like this, which is the existing Litchfield area plan which tells you what you can and cannot do on your block, it does not have a great impact on people.
I showed you these because this is what I advertised in the front of my office, and I think the member for Goyder did also. This is the Litchfield Shire Draft Northern Territory Planning Scheme map. In other words, they released a totally new map of Litchfield Shire with all the new zones under the NT Planning Scheme. This sat in my window for nearly two months. Basically, alongside this map, which is all the existing zones, was a new map with all the new zones. I put several submissions into the department saying where I thought the new plans were wrong and where some changes needed to occur. I did all that and thought: ‘Beaut! The next thing that is going to be released is a new Litchfield Shire map’. No.
I thought we were going to have a map similar to the one we were showing people, but the new map is half of the original map and half of the new map. We have zones on this map that come from what is now applied - RL1, RL2, pastoral - but we also have new zones like: service commercial, SC, which does not exist at the present time; tourism commercial, which does not exist at the present time; light industrial, LI, which does not exist as such at the present time; RR, which is the controversial one we have at the moment, which does not exist at the present time.
Some people might say: ‘Big deal. They are just new zones’. I have been informed that those new zones on our map, which come from the NT Planning Scheme, this book, will possibly not be approved for another two years. So, we will have a hybridised zoning map which has part of the old zones and part of the new zones. What could happen in two years time when this book is approved – and this is not approved yet; there will probably be a lot of amendments to it – is that then we will have to turn around and amend that map, and that map will have to be changed again.
What I am trying to do is to put a practical solution to you, minister. I am not trying to knock the concept of changing the Litchfield Area Plan. There is some detail that I do not agree with, but, overall, if you left it with the existing zones, people would know exactly what is occurring. If you do not, in two years time, you will cause confusion because you will change the zones again and people will not know what you are talking about. If you leave them as they are and people have special circumstances to do things that they cannot do under the existing zone, the minister has the power under an exceptional development permit, and he has power under the SU zoning. People can apply for an SU zone. Those matters which fit into the land use objectives but may not be covered by a zone can be taken up by an exceptional development permit or an SU zone. When this book comes into being, then change the entire map over at once. That way, you will have a much simpler form of completing your changes.
The way it is at the moment, you are sending out a confused message to people, especially as we had the map sitting in my window for two months and people came up and said: ‘The government is considering this. Here are the new zones and here is what they are going to do’. I thought: ‘Great’. We lodged a fairly big submission to say yes and no about various issues and goodnight. The next minute, four maps turn up on my window and they are completely different from what people were looking at.
My suggestion here is not about destroying the Litchfield Area Plan. I am just trying to make it a little simpler for people to understand.
The other issue I have in this debate is that with all the changes in zoning, the government needs to individually contact all the landowners whose blocks were rezoned. I know that the government has now decided to send out 6000 letters to people in relation to changes to the Litchfield Land Use Objectives and Area Plan. In fact, I have a copy of the letter here and it says:
Dear [whoever]
In October 2002, following a comprehensive public consultation process, I amended the
NT Planning Scheme to include the Litchfield Land Use Objectives planning concepts and
land use objectives 2002 …
Etcetera, etcetera:
As I am required to do by the Planning Act, I am now proposing amendments to Litchfield Area
Plan 1992 to remove the inconsistencies between the policies established by the concepts and
objectives and existing development controls.
Minister, you can do that by keeping your exceptional development permits and SUs going. Do that for the time being, and then later on change it over to the NT Planning Scheme when it comes into existence.
Some of the submissions received in response to the recent exhibition of proposed amendments
suggest the consultation process may have not provided adequate notification of proposals. I
am keen to ensure landowners who may be impacted are aware of the proposals and have an
opportunity to provide comment. The impacts of proposed amendments on future use and
development of individual lots will vary and range from an actual change of zone to
amendments of the existing zones.
I do not know whether you have made a rod for your back here. The issues I was raising are relating to zone changes. There certainly have been changes within zones about what you can do, RL1 is a classic example. There are some things there that perhaps some people need to know. However, if you are to send out a broad letter like this, I am not sure what sort of answer you are going to get. You mentioned on radio that if the majority of people want the changes, you will accept the changes.
But that is not quite fair. The people I contacted in Whitewood Park and Howard River Park - and I am quite willing to table letters that I sent to these people just to show you that the letter was not political. It was to tell people that there were some changes, and some of those were serious changes. If you were to ask people in Humpty Doo what they thought of the changes to the RL1 in Whitewood Park and Howard River Park, they would not know. In fact, on my way around delivering the letters, because I hand delivered letters to every block, I did not find one person whom I spoke to had any idea that their land was being rezoned. It is the rezoned people I am more concerned about, because rezoning can make a lot of difference to your block, and changes within the zoning can.
It is something I have raised with the previous government, it is not just something I am raising with your government, minister. I criticised the changing of the use of the HP zone over Lambells Lagoon, the horticultural protection was applied to what was then RL2 land. None of the landowners at that time knew that their land was being changed. In their case, it probably did not make much difference because they could not subdivide lower than it was, but it should be a requirement of government, it should be a matter of common courtesy, to tell people that land is being rezoned.
What is so important in these areas like Whitewood Park and Howard River Park, and I should also mention that it is not only in my electorate, it is in the Goyder electorate, is that there are quite a number of blocks that will certainly find they cannot do things they ought to do. It is probably going to be difficult, Madam Speaker, for you to understand this, but I will try.
Madam SPEAKER: Why is it difficult for me to understand?
Mr WOOD: Because it is not in Alice Springs. The problem is that the government has decided to introduce a new zone called the Rural Residential zone, the RR zone. Many people, in fact, the member for Daly knows that I do not agree with the RR zone for various reasons. Basically, this zone allows for a range of block sizes between 0.4 hectare up to two hectares, as long as the average block size is one hectare. That is great in theory. I understand if you have a big piece of land, you can cut it up into any size blocks you like, as long as the average is one hectare. What the government has tried to do is apply that zone to land in the Litchfield Shire; land in the Nelson electorate that, to some extent, fulfils those requirements. However, they were subdivided 20 years ago under a different zone, RL1, rural living. Of course, those blocks are smaller in that subdivision; they were given a waiver. At that time, there was a lot of argument about it. Howard River Park, especially; they nearly protested in front of the then Chief Minister Paul Everingham, who was opening up Howard River Park at the time. There was a lot of angst about the small blocks, but they were passed. They were passed as an exemption, a waiver, from the normal lot size of RL1.
The problem is that whilst there might be an argument for some control over, for instance, animals, and commercial horticulture, especially on small blocks, you have included a whole range of people on two hectare blocks - at least, I think from memory, 120 blocks. They are blocks on the fringe. Many of them do not even fit into the guidelines for the new RR subdivision which says you must have a buffer around an area. For instance, if you go to Howard River Park, the two hectare blocks back onto the Howard River or they back onto themselves. They are not acting as a buffer to anything. Yet, they will have the conditions of RR which means if you do not have a horse or a cow, or if you want to grow heliconias, you will not be permitted, even though people on the other side of the road can do the same thing.
Whitewood Road is a classic example. Whitewood Road blocks were subdivided in 1978, four years before Whitewood Park existed. They have been included in the RR subdivision proposals. Those people will now have a different set of rules than the people on the other side of the road.
There is another area that I have not raised in my letter, because the letter would have become too long and people would not have understood. The government has introduced a new classification of what you can do on your block called ‘home contracting’. Home contracting has been brought in and it is a good initiative for the government. There has been a lot of dispute over when three vehicles can be kept: If I am an electrician, can I have a few vehicles at my place? I am working away from my place and I store some electrical goods. What is the difference between that and being ‘industrial’? The government has brought in some guidelines for that particular use of the land. It says here that on RL1 land you can have an area of 200 m2 and you can have no more than three vehicles for use at home base contracting. In the RR zone, you can only have 30 m2 of space and one vehicle. So you then have people who have a five acre block on one side of the road will now be told because they are in this new zone: ‘If you want to run a business you can only have one vehicle’. I am referring to section 17(11) if you are looking in the book.
Mr Vatskalis: Page?
Mr WOOD: Page 72 of the new proposed Litchfield Area Plan. There again is a problem.
Another reason why I believe people should have been notified – I am not allowed to speak of a previous member. My predecessor as member for Nelson, Noel Padgham-Purich has a block. If you look on these maps, you will see that her land was RL1. That is, her land is RL1 which has the potential, being a 320 acre block, to be cut up under the existing zone into 60 blocks – give or take a bit because she has some land subdivided already. Under the new zone which the department has proposed, her land is RL2, which means she can only subdivide her land into 16 blocks. That is a big downsizing in value. You will not get four times the price for an eight hectare block as you would for the two hectare block; they do not vary that much. A two hectare block might sell for $65 000 to $95 000 and an eight hectare block might sell for the same thing. There is no correlation in size and sale price. Therefore, she would certainly be put out by that.
There are some areas – and I presume the member for Goyder will discuss this as well – in Middle Arm Road. There are quite a number of eight hectare blocks on Middle Arm Road. The proposals here are to have the RR zone placed over them. That will mean people on an eight hectare block who do not have a horse, a cow, or are not growing commercial horticulture at the present time, will not be allowed. It will be banned and that is unfair. I know what the government is trying to do, but in applying it to existing subdivisions, you have to be very careful.
Another area is the horticultural zone at Berry Springs/Darwin River. Some may argue that the changes will not devalue the land, but if you owned a block there, at the moment you could cut it into eight hectare blocks. It is RL2. Under the new horticultural protection zone, you will not be allowed to cut it up into a block size of less than 25 hectares. So, immediately you have lost some potential to subdivide. That again will devalue your land. Some of those people might have no concerns, and that is fair enough. But the government needs to tell people because they are making an effect on the land.
There could even be questions of legality. If the government is to make a decision that devalues your land, do they have a legal obligation to compensate? There are also areas in Acacia. There is one property owner down there who at the present time is growing mangoes on RL2. Part of his land is now being zoned HP. Those are the issues.
The way around it, and I am trying to put a practical solution because if you had done this properly in the first place - and I am not saying you personally did - I still believe the RR zone is driven by a mixture of developers and the department within the previous government. The previous government put it forward and I opposed it there and I will come to the point of why I oppose it. To apply it to Howard River Park and Whitewood Park, as I said, you just create problems. There is no doubt having too many animals on a block unless they are well-managed will cause environmental degradation. I know you made a comment on the radio the other day saying I wrote you a letter. I did. But I am not saying these things should be banned; I am saying they should be controlled.
If you left the RL1 zone over those blocks as is present, as it will stand under the new zone, each person is required to get consent to have the horse, to have the cow, to grow commercial horticulture. So, if the owner of a 0.4 hectare block wants a horse they have to go to the Development Consent Authority. If the one hectare block buyer wants a horse, they have to go to the Development Consent Authority. Under the rules that are proposed in here, even a five acre or two hectare block requires approval for a horse or a cow. I must admit that it is possibly a bit over the top for the two hectare. Many people believe that they could at least have one horse on a two hectare block without permission and maybe anything over that you may have to get permission for. I do not think we should drive ourselves into a bureaucratic nightmare over some of these things. Some of these blocks can take a horse.
However, as it stands with the new proposal, RL1 will cover all those problems. You have to get consent. I am sure if the Planning Authority believes that one horse on a 0.4 hectare block - or two, I am pretty dubious whether they are going to allow that - but if they did allow it I would presume they would say: ‘Righto, the paddocks will have to be irrigated, the stables have to be built in a different direction to the house next door’. You can put in conditions. To overcome the problem of the two hectare being the minimum lot size for RL1, you can put a clause in this under RL1 which says: ‘If your lot size is below two hectares, you will apply for permission’. You have clauses down here - see 12.5, see 10.5 - you could put a clause next to ‘stables’ which could say: ‘Permitted for two hectares and above. Consent for two hectares and below’. You could get around that problem by just doing that.
The other danger I see by allowing the RR subdivision over these existing subdivisions, is people ‘smell’ subdivision of their block. I had two people already in Whitewood Park say to me: ‘Oh, good, I can subdivide my block.’ Now, I know there are conditions in here which purport to how you can subdivide your land. I believe that, especially in Whitewood Park where there is no lot size under one hectare; in other words your one hectare average lot size which is what the RR is about, does not have any smaller blocks, and there are quite a few two hectare blocks. I would say there is no reason in the wide world why some of those two hectare block could not be subdivided. There is no reason perhaps if you had the block in the right place, why you could not subdivide some of those one hectare blocks into 0.4 hectare. I believe there is that real danger that you could start ruining the rural amenity. Except for those two people, I have not run into any one else who wants to subdivide their land. They came out to the rural area for a bit of space. They do not want to see subdivisions.
However, if you read that carefully, and I read it a few times, in certain circumstances I believe, especially Howard River Park, if you allow this zone you leave it wide open for a possible subdivision of some of that land. Some of the land is not suitable because it is wet, but some of the land is suitable because it is dry. In fact, in Howard River Park, I should mention there are a number of blocks that are well over two hectares. They are 14 hectares. When you are looking at restricting a person from having a horse, you would have to say on 14 hectares: give the man a break! He should not have to come under this restriction.
This gives me the opportunity to say why I oppose the RR zone. My opposition to the RR zone is not related to this issue about Whitewood Park and Howard River Park. This issue is related to how it affects people. My concern about the RR zone, which has been pushed for a long time, is that it increases the density of people in a street. I went to see a gentleman last night. We have 0.4 hectare blocks behind the Howard River School. I said to this fellow: ‘Instead of worrying about the number of horses, which the department is worried about, why don’t we worry about the number of dogs?’ You will always hear something about dogs. ‘Why don’t we put a limitation on the numbers of dogs? Three!’ He said: ‘Three?’ He stood out the front and he said: ‘That will be three there, three there, three there and three there’, because in a 0.4 hectare subdivision, you have four or five blocks that would fit into a one hectare block. So you could have 12 dogs in one section, whereas if one hectare was the minimum, you might only have three dogs. You change amenity. You have a lot more cars in that street; you have a lot more people close together.
I am not opposed to the smaller blocks per se. 0.4 hectare blocks have a purpose, but they should be in the district centre. They have been pushed for by developers who say: ‘We should have a choice of lot sizes’. I say we should have a choice of lot sizes: one hectare and upwards. One hectare gives you space. One hectare is not much different from a five hectare block, except you do not have the length. One hectare would require town water, and from the developers’ point of view, if one hectare was the only lot they built within a subdivision, they would still have the same number of people spread out, and they would not lose anything.
If I had 320 acres - I am not too sure what that is in hectares - I could cut it up into one hectare blocks and I might get 40 one-hectare blocks. The way the RR zone is put now, we must have a buffer of two hectare blocks around the outside. Then you can make up the rest, as long as you do not go below the one hectare average. There is a lot more work that needs to be done on the RR and its effect.
There is a developer in the rural area and he has been around for a long time - Mr Graham Churcher. He operates the Churcher Estate. Churcher Estate has owned a lot of land in the Howard Springs area for a long time. They have been good developers and they have always tried to do the right thing. As you would know, Girraween Estate, which they developed, had problems with water. You may have been involved in those issues in the beginning. They developed a two hectare subdivision. The government said: ‘There is a good chance of getting water in that subdivision’ and so people moved in there and put their bores down. A lot of people did not find water.
Churcher Estate said: ‘Jiminy Cricket, this is no good for business’. They went to the government and got permission, did a deal, and put in town water, increased the price of the blocks quite a bit - up to about $95 000 for a two hectare block with town water. So they realised that there was a problem with water in their subdivision. Their subdivision is around the Girraween Lagoon. They have now proposed a new subdivision, which is north and heads up towards Whitewood Park. They have asked to put in a one hectare subdivision with some large blocks, by the way, because some of them go back on to the flood plains, but around about 90 blocks, most of them one hectare.
At present, there is a bit of an argument between the department and Churcher whether they should be allowed to have this because it does not fit within RL1 and, under the land use objectives, it does not even show it in the RR.
Obviously, they are trying for a smaller lot size, one hectare. To make it economical to put town water on so there is not a problem with bores they have decided to go down that path. The very thing they do not want is the ability for people to subdivide that land into 0.4 hectare. You could subdivide it because the problem you have is because this subdivision is attached to some huge blocks off the top, which are part of the flood plain of the Howard River; they have dry land at the front, a big block at the back. When you talk about the averaging it is quite easy to say: ‘I will buy a few of these one hectare blocks and cut them up as long as I have packaged sewerage, as long as I am on the main road’, and there will be a main road going through there, ‘I could subdivide my land into smaller blocks’. They do not want that to happen.
What I would like government to do is keep the RR zone but have it for lot sizes under two hectares to one hectare. Make that the bracket: two hectares to one hectare. For the RR, call it rural suburban, call it something else, but only attach it to a district centre. If you have been to Howard Springs, there is a very small district centre. There is some land right next to Howard Springs, private land. That would be ideal for small blocks like that. They are a little bit rural - more suburban than rural, I would say - but that way, you are sending out to the signal to people that you will accept some of these blocks, but they have a proviso and that is that they are attached to a district centre.
The proposal that I know about, and I believe the department and the Litchfield council knows about, is that Henry and Walker would like to subdivide the old Frances Creek iron ore site, and they would also like to subdivide the sulphur dump site. They are two large blocks on the Stuart Highway, just south of the Arnhem Highway intersection. They want to put in an RR zone. They are certainly not mentioned in the land use objectives, so you will not have to wonder how people are going to do it anyway. They tell me they are requiring a buffer, and therefore to get the blocks they want, they will have to go down to 0.4 hectare because the two hectare buffer takes out a lot of the blocks they could possibly subdivide. I am saying, if the government wants to change its land use objectives and allow them to put an RR zone in there, allow them one hectare lots and require a 50 m uncleared buffer around the edge. It has been done plenty of times already, the Development Consent Authority does it as normal, where there is a problem with neighbours or spraying, and do not let anyone build within 50 m of that boundary. You will get exactly the same because with a two hectare block, you can still build down the back of the block. That way the developers will be satisfied. They might not be totally satisfied, because I think Henry and Walker want to have the small blocks. However, they still get the same number of parcels of land; we will still keep our rural amenity.
Why I am passionate about it is, as in the old land use objectives, and the new land use objectives, we have a clause, ‘the aim’, and this plan aims to protect the rural character of the Litchfield Shire. I am a great supporter of the concept that the planners want for the total Darwin area. I might have some fights about Weddell, I might have some fights about Middle Arm, but the concept is that we have a city, rural, city, rural, city. I do not want to see the same mistakes as we have seen in the past, where you had this urban sprawl because of pressure from developers on government to chop up all the rural land into small blocks. We should be able to maintain our rural amenity.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Nelson be grated an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Minister, what I am trying to do is protect that rural amenity, protect that rural character. I see a great danger in this 0.4 hectare. I will give you an example. If the government allows the RR zone to go ahead as it is, with the 0.4 hectare block on those two blocks of land I just mentioned, then you have Bailey’s block across the road, you have Onn’s block on the Arnhem Highway, you have Berno’s block on the Stuart Highway, you have H & K’s block on the Stuart Highway, and there is another quite large block next to H&K. All would fit into exactly the same scheme, and you would have, right in the centre of the Litchfield Shire, that is around the Arnhem Highway/Stuart Highway, a change in the rural amenity. You will allow 0.4 hectare blocks.
If people do not believe me, go to Whitewood Park. Whitewood Park is an example of all three sizes of blocks that have existed for 20 years. We have 0.4 hectares, we have one hectare, and we have two hectares. When you go there, or you look at aerial photographs, you will find the 0.4 hectare block has been cleared, and they have planted a few trees, it is basically suburban, complete with nice lawns and all that. The one hectare, most people have kept the bush, made room for their house, and the bush has generally stayed on those properties, because they are too small for horticulture, too big to clear, they have kept them pretty well. The two hectare in that same subdivision, you will see some blocks totally cleared, some totally full of mangoes - that is not knocking that, but that is the way it is.
One hectare, I believe, does a lot more to preserve the environment. It means less water is being pulled out of the ground, and it is using land, keeping it rural, but using it well. There are a lot of two hectare blocks in the rural area now, where Mum and Dad came out 20 years ago, bought little Johnny a horse, cleared the back of the block, and then Johnny has gone, and you have a batch of weeds. There is a need for blocks that are still rural. One hectare is 100 by 100 roughly, it still gives you the same spacing as a two hectare block, except lengthwise. It still gives you that rural feel. I believe that is what needs changing. That RR zone, to me, needs a lot of looking at.
The other area of the RR zone is in the area of Goyder, which is the section you have marked around Weddell. I do not have a problem per se with small blocks being next to the big city of Weddell. However, what I would hope – and I have said this many times – is that we do not declare that land RR at the moment; we leave it Future Uses with Weddell. I know some of it is private, and there are some issues you could probably say that will be a problem. However, I would love to see a city. I hope the member for Blain is not too close but, really, Palmerston does not turn me on as a city centre.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, it does not. It had the potential, and it has not. Wouldn’t it be great to see a city with a six-lane boulevard to a large building at the end; a city with the access from the city spread out from the CBD. We do not seem to have that. I want Weddell to be something special. It could have an inland lake. I have said many times there are some drainage areas there. I am not against changing the environment, even though I am against damming the Elizabeth River. You can change the environment carefully and sensibly and with minimal impact. The Elizabeth River dam kills 1000 hectares of mangroves. However, I would love the government to even have a competition. I have said before: why can’t we have a Territory, or national or international competition, show the designers the land, show them some of the difficulties with the land - the wet areas, the creeks, where people live, the highway and say: ‘How about we have a competition, $20 000 for the best design’.
Walter Burleigh Griffin built Canberra. I am not sure whether he did it on competition but I studied it when I was younger. Whether you like the idea of Canberra being an inland city - big deal. Stand on Anzac Hill and look over Canberra, it is a beautiful city. It has Lake Burleigh Griffin, for which the creek was dammed, and that is what makes that beautiful lake. It has beautiful buildings. I am not saying we are going to turn Weddell into a Canberra, although why don’t we aim at something like that? Better to aim high and at least get something good, than have something that, to me, seems to be worked out on two dimensions.
We decided that Weddell would be - under the new map, I think it is called FD. Thank heavens you changed it from FU, it is much nicer to say to people. Then you have this big area of RR rural/residential, which includes a fair bit of Crown land still. Wouldn’t it be better to say: ‘Let us put a moratorium on that’? I am sure the people who own the land with RR, if they were told they could develop some suburbs there - just say that is the way the city developed - would probably be very pleased instead of doing 0.4 hectare and one hectare blocks.
There is no panic for Weddell. I would hate to see us start building small blocks next to this big city and then find out that was a silly thing to do. It is like starting on the outside and not knowing what the inside is like. I would rather know what the total picture is like and then say: ‘Oh, all right, we know what the picture is like, you can start here because this is going to fit in with that’. At the moment, I do not think we have that concept. I say minister: let us go for something a bit special. Let us put out a competition and say: ‘We are going to make something that we can remember Weddell by’. A lot of cities you can remember because it has something, like the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Melbourne would be the MCG. What do you remember Darwin for? Fannie Bay Gaol?
Mr Vatskalis: Convention centre.
Mr WOOD: Oh, right, convention centre, yes. Might be; it could be. Palmerston has a big egg cup, called the water tower. However, there is nothing really to attract you. Your government actually said something in the paper - I think it was your government - about having something that brings tourists. It might have been minister Henderson; I am not sure who said that we need to build something which attracts tourists in its own right. A good, well planned city can bring people.
In fact, I was thinking the other day that maybe we have lost vision. They probably thought whoever built the Eiffel Tower was a nutcase, but it brings an awful lot of people. I am not saying we need to get a Statue of Liberty either, but people dig things that were probably a little off the planet but, by gee, now people go for miles to see them. We do not have that sort of creativity these days. We may have tried with Stuart’s Spire at the end of Daly Street, but that did not get far.
All I am saying is Weddell is part of Litchfield Shire. I just hope we can develop things better. I hope you can take some of the comments on that I made by the RR zone. Am I allowed, Madam Speaker, to sum up at the end of this debate?
Mr Kiely: Of course you can.
Madam SPEAKER: Motion, yes.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Because I did not have it the last time. That does not matter. It is okay. I was not sure whether it was a technicality or not. All right. I might leave my closing remarks until later, and I would be interested to hear what the minister has to say.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I place on the record some of my observations about the motion which is currently before the House sponsored by the member for Nelson, that is to withdraw the proposed new Litchfield area plan and zoning map using zones taken from the draft Territory planning scheme; secondly to replace it with the Litchfield area plan; and thirdly, another sensible recommendation, to notify all landowners whose land will be rezoned under the new Litchfield area plan before it is declared.
There is an element of tragedy, really, in what the member for Nelson has said. In this regard what he has said is, I think, correct. The tragedy is that it is probably not going to be taken on board seriously by the government. The minister, I suspect, will give it lip service. I saw see him being bored and rolling his eyes earlier. I suspect at the end of the day the very sensible things which the member for Nelson has put on the table today – not motivated by any sort of political malice towards the government, but quite genuine concerns which he sees and have motivated him. There will be long-term effects on many rural people and their properties and their amenities, their basic rural amenity which is one of the reasons they moved out to the rural area.
Not only is the member for Nelson in the neighbouring electorate, of course, there is also my neighbour and probably the one other person who talks as passionately about planning as the member for Nelson: my dear dad. I recall many times my father as the Litchfield Shire president and Gerry as his deputy, having long conversations about planning and many of these issues have been canvassed and raised, commonsense things. It is really an honour to be in a position to, I suppose, articulate some of those concerns in parliament. The tragedy being they are probably falling on deaf ears, but one day hopefully, we will be in a position to change a few things and all the things we have spoken about for years will be given a bit more weight.
There is no doubt that – and this is something that is self-evident – but you cannot underestimate the importance of good planning. You cannot underestimate the importance of talking to rural people and everyday people about the effect it is going to have and asking their views. The difficulty is that it is not a particularly attractive issue to the media. Some say it is not newsworthy per se, until there is a problem. Then of course it becomes newsworthy and it might grab the odd headline, but often the horse has well and truly bolted, the planning decisions of a very general nature have been made, and it is difficult to rectify what would seem to be a fairly obvious oversight.
I am not going to repeat some of the things that the member for Nelson said, but one thing is for sure, these maps have been advertised - the proposed Northern Territory planning scheme, the Litchfield land use objectives and now we have the hybrid. We have had some planning documentation supplied on disc. I have plastered them all over my walls in my electorate office at the Coolalinga shopping complex. I have mentioned it a few times in my column and it is surprising but you really do not get the feedback you get when you talk about other issues of a more particular nature. Planning does not raise the passion, I suppose, of everybody. There are a few people interested and if you go out into the community and say that this is what is happening and explain it clearly and concisely, you will get some concerns articulated to you. Ultimately, it does not come as any surprise and it should not come as any surprise to honourable members that rural people are not aware of the new proposed RR zoning, and they are not aware that some of these zones in the Litchfield Shire and the electorates of Goyder and Nelson have been significantly changed.
I have commented before in this place regarding planning. On 10 October last year, during the course of a debate, I had the opportunity to visit, in a very general way, planning and planning issues. As I said then, there are a number of fundamental prerequisites that have to be complied with to make sure that you have good planning. The statutory authority making the decisions affecting the Litchfield Shire and our electorates has to be well informed. There has to be some mechanism to store material and feedback from the public. I do not think that is occurring at the moment. Much has been said, but I am not aware of any consolidated library of feedback and views, and the comments made by the member for Nelson made today and in the past. He is a man who has been involved in the planning process, and passionate about it, for 10 years. I do not pretend to know as much as the member for Nelson or my dad about planning matters, but that type of feedback is important, and it is not being properly utilised or given sufficient weight.
Obviously, with any planning scheme, there has to be a degree of flexibility so the structure that you create has to be dynamic and flexible within reason. Once again, it is a case of constantly reviewing and constantly engaging the public, local members, all those competing interests to strike a balance. There is an expectation that planning decisions are made in the public interest, and in modern times, there are so many competing public interests. The question of what weight is to be given to each interest is a matter for the Development Consent Authority or the statutory body, or whatever tag you intend to give it, when it makes those decisions.
There needs to be a way of properly communicating the reasons for changes to a town plan, and that really goes to the heart of the third limb of the motion the member for Nelson has before this parliament. There has to be a mechanism for communicating with those people who are going to be affected by planning decisions, adverse or otherwise, which could affect the value of their properties, their lifestyle and the very reason they have chosen to live in an area. Not only should it be a prerequisite, but it is a common courtesy that a government with infinite resources, when you compare that to the average person, should be able to post a letter to them. It should explain to them in a non-political, objective and fair way that this is what is going to happen, these are the changes that we are talking about and if you want to give me some feedback or if you have a view, then contact the above address. That feedback has to be quite genuinely taken on board and not just shoved in a filing cabinet when people say: ‘We have consulted; let us move on’.
The member for Casuarina’s conduct and poor handling of this issue has created a lack of certainty. Under his guidance, the situation, in my view, has become progressively worse in terms of the degree of certainty or uncertainty. When someone comes into my office and asks me a basic question, it is not easy for me to give them a reliable and precise answer because there have been two maps, a hybrid and it has certainly not been handled very well.
The member for Nelson touched upon this: there is a portion of a new zoning, RR zoning, on Middle Arm Road. A large portion of the new zone is relatively uninhabited; I think it is owned by one or two large land-holders. Closer to Middle Arm Road there are a number of smaller five and eight acre properties. These are the very same people who, honourable members will recall, the minister was going to acquire a portion of their land to put a tank stand on it at some stage, causing no end of concern to these people; I think this was last year. Anyway, it occurred, and despite the fact that the minister did not realise it, on the other side of the road there was effectively a five thousand acre block. No one’s lifestyle would have been affected. There is actually higher land on the other side, and all the upset which was caused by the conduct of his office could have been avoided.
Well, they are now in the firing line again. They are in the situation where these blocks have been rezoned. They are in the situation that, technically speaking - and I suppose it is always dangerous to play hypotheticals, but you have to canvass these things. If these people, for example, had horses the last 10 years, their kids have grown up, they have gone to university, as I did, of course; dad and mum get rid of the horses because it costs them money to feed, the kids come home, things change, grandchildren come on the scene. Suddenly, they will not be permitted to have horses back on this property, despite the fact they have their stables and they are set up because, at the time this new zoning occurred, there were not any horses on the property. That is a hypothetical, and you can say there will be a degree of latitude and we will all be faced with that situation. These type of things have to be considered before you make these changes.
Planning is one of those issues which you cannot deal with in totality and then move on. It is something which is constantly evolving. As developmental pressure increases, town planning has to be constantly reviewed. I am not having a shot in political terms at the government for reviewing the zones. It is healthy, it is part of the process. However, I am concerned about the way that it has been handled. You can make all the excuses you want, and the government, in a teflon-coated way, can try to pass the buck and say that they have consulted, but the tragedy is that you have not. The things the member for Nelson said are absolutely correct. They are views and concerns which have been articulated by people who genuinely care and genuinely understand the issue. I just hope that the government, in this particular situation, seriously takes on board these concerns, not just pays lip service to them, and actually makes some changes for the better to deal with the uncertainty which has been created.
When I was fortunate enough to go to the Small Countries Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, it really invigorated my whole understanding and gave me a renewed motivation to stay part of this process. One of the things that someone said there was that there was a view to trying to determine what sort of criteria, what sort of basic benchmarks, have to be met before someone is eligible to stand for parliament. Of course, there are all the arguments that there should not be any restrictions, it should be open to anybody. Then there are some who say you cannot have been to prison, or you have to be a citizen of a certain country. One of the arguments was that, because planning is such an important part of the parliamentary process, it does not get the attention it deserves, and you really have to have some sort of certificate in town planning. Also, that parliamentarians should be forced, upon entering parliament, to undertake this sort of training because, ultimately, the only legacy they leave is not the big noting themselves and floating around in a white car, it is the real effect they have on people through planning, through decisions which will form part of the heritage of the next generation.
The remedy – well, it is not just a matter of throwing stones at the government. The member for Nelson has, quite sensibly, suggested a remedy and that is contained in a combination of paragraphs (a) and (b) of his motion; that is, effectively to replace the current composite – or the hybrid map – with the Litchfield Area Plan and zoning map, using zones presently defined in the 1992 Litchfield Area Plan.
I have already tried to raise the interests of my electorate. As I say, it is difficult to get people heavily involved in this, so it is not something which the government is going to be constantly bashed on the head for. It is a remedy that they could properly implement and, I suspect, politically speaking, there would not be an enormous amount of fall-out. It is a matter of doing the right thing. It is something which will have an effect on people today. They can flog the glossy brochures to the poor old journos and those mums and dads in the northern suburbs, about their fabled convention centre. At the end of the day those issues are probably politically more likely to attract the attention of the public in the northern suburbs than doing the right thing by the rural people.
I look at this map and I know that my friend already referred to it. What I see is not only the place where I have lived my entire life, but where all my friends and family are. This is a serious debate on a serious issue. It is not something which people should manipulate for their political purposes; there is genuinely a problem. I know the minister is busy and he has 1000 things on, and I suspect he is being bombarded with information from people who work with him. However, ultimately minister, what the member for Nelson has said is absolutely correct. What I am saying is a view which is genuinely held; it is not just having a go at the Martin Labor government and all those type of things. It is an issue which you have the power to resolve.
I do not want the minister to just pay lip service to this with: ‘Yes, but, yes, but’. I do not want the minister to go through the appalling process of one year of lobbying to vary a bus route about 300 m so you can do a U-turn off the Arnhem Highway. I do not want the excuses of trying to refer it to never-ending committees. There has to be a real and genuine effort; this is part of your responsibility as government to make good laws, good planning decisions which will affect real people, and not just political grandstanding like I have seen over the past two years. It is bordering on neglect sometimes, in not taking on board the concerns which have been raised by people who know about planning.
Related to the motion, the member for Nelson made a number of observations about the minimum block size. This is something which I have canvassed some prominent members of the rural community about, and I have spoken to a number of people. Everyone has a view and the views certainly are not consistent; there is no golden treasure – there is no golden consistencies. However, everyone has the view that there has to be a clear delineation between what is rural and what is suburban. Also, if developers want to develop land and cut it up into small blocks – and one view is small blocks being smaller than five acres - then they should buy land in areas where it is legitimate to do that, rather than make piecemeal application and have this jigsaw puzzle. You have one developer who has a large block on the side of major arterial road who gets the go-ahead for special use or negotiated process, and the bloke up the road wants to do the same, and then so-and-so uses that one as a precedent.
Well, there is one fundamental: good rural people, my friends, my family, people whom I represent and hold dear are all of the view that there has to be a clear delineation between rural and suburban and their rural life style. That is why they live there, that is why people choose to drive 25 or 30 minutes to town each day to work for those who work in town. There is something special - and to start muddying the waters and creating problems with these smaller blocks will only bring on more pressures such as dog control and how many horses you can and cannot have.
Madam Speaker, I support totally and unconditionally the very sensible, logical motion that has been sponsored by the member for Nelson. He is absolutely correct in what he says about the history of the development. He is correct when he talks about this particular issue …
Dr Burns: You have been working on him, Gerry, you have a fan there. You could be deputy leader in your party.
Mr MALEY: … and really it is disappointing to hear that sort of interjection from an honourable member I had a bit more respect for. This is a serious issue. You can jest about all the other lefty-type things, but this is a genuine issue and a genuine motion and one which I am happy to support.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am very impressed by the passion exhibited by the member for Nelson. I share quite a few of his concerns and quite a bit of his vision. I absolutely agree that in the past 50 years they have designed cities without any imagination. We design squares and we live in squares and you see the difference that the old cities make. Everybody wants to visit them and there must be a reason for that and quite rightly so. We have no imagination and the vision to build Eiffel Towers or the Statue of Liberty or Venice with canals. We are just trying to maximise our profit by subdividing land more and more. I also share your concerns about what is rural and what is urban.
However, at the same time I heard the member for Goyder, and it was obvious that he got a 10-minute crash course on town planning. It was obvious that he did not know what he was talking about. Let me explain to you why I say that; no offence, I am not a town planner, I take a lot of advice from my department. I have not studied town planning but at least I am not standing up to make a statement for the sake of making a statement to oppose the other side of the House.
Let me explain something first. I recall very well the debate we had with the member for Nelson about the Litchfield land use objectives last year. They were made in 1992, they were never brought forward by the then government. I gave a guarantee they would be out within a certain period and they were brought out, and they were debated, and they were accepted. Under the current Planning Act I am now obliged, if there are any differences between the land use objectives and the Litchfield Area Plan 1992, to amend the plan so that the plan and the land use objectives conform. There is no way out of it; I have to do it. I am obliged under the act. So, until this happens, I cannot say I am not doing it because then we have a conflict between policy and the document, so I have to exhibit it. What we are actually discussing now - the RR, RL1 and RL2 and what you can do and what you cannot do on these particular blocks zoned under this particular zoning - are proposals.
The more I hear about it the more I understand how confusing town planning can be to the common people. I recall very well the member for Daly commiserated with me, with a smile on his face, when I entered the world of town planning because he has been in the same position before. In town planning there is no way you can please everybody. You will please somebody and displease somebody else. You change the zoning and somebody will jump for joy, some others will curse you. However, we have to go out and exhibit it, which we did for two and a half months. The message I get from the community is that the community is confused. The community either does not understand, or they have not seen the document, or they do not know what the changes are going to be.
The member for Nelson talked about an impact on 400 blocks. The reality is more than 400 owners are going to be affected. The reality is that every single person in the Litchfield area, one way or another, is going to be affected. That is why I took the decision and instructed the department to send 6500 letters to every person in Litchfield Shire to advise them of the proposed changes. We also sent letters to the people who made submissions during the exhibition period; they were told that the exhibition period was to be left open for another month, until 19 September. In addition, we said that we will have people in shopping centres and the Litchfield Shire Council offices from 23 August until 10 September to provide information, to explain the changes and, if they wish, to put objections to us.
The community consultation has been extended for another month and the community is going to be assisted by professionals working in the Town Planning department to understand the issues. Once again, this is not a reality. This is not going to be a reality until I sign it off. I will only sign off if I am satisfied that what is proposed in these changes is good for the community, it is what the community wants and, to put it bluntly, is not some stupid idea from a bureaucrat sitting at a desk in Cavenagh Street that does not reflect the wishes and will of the community.
I have my own concerns about RR; I have my own concerns about what you can and cannot do in RL1 and RL2. I will give you an example. When I was working in Western Australia, some people decided to live in the rural area because of the clean air, peace and quiet, and big blocks. I worked at the council and received a phone call one morning. This woman was complaining: ‘I came to live in the rural area for peace and quiet. Why does this bloody farmer start his tractor at 6 o’clock in the morning?’ So you can see immediately the conflict between people from the city who think they are going to the rural area to live a suburban, idyllic life, and the reality of life is that somebody actually uses that rural area for primary production. Here in the Territory, many times and many nights I had to respond to complaints about chemical drift from people spraying mangoes, especially people living next to RL2 blocks, big blocks, and their own property was RL1 with the house very close to the boundaries.
We have the continuous conflict of people living in the rural area for their own personal reasons, because they want to be there, and others because they see an opportunity for development and business. The member for Nelson wrote me a letter about one of his constituents complaining about his neighbour keeping horses. I thought you could keep horses in the rural area. So did many people. However, there are people who objected to the smell of horses, the smell of urine, and the fact that the horse ate all the grass in the area. I agree with the member for Nelson. There may be ways to face some of these problems. If there is a request to continue the current ability to keep horses on RL1 and RL2 without consent, we will have a look at what people want and maybe limit the number of animals. For example, if you want to keep more than three horses, you have to have consent; you are allowed to keep up to two horses, let’s say, in RL1, but there are conditions; or you can keep one horse on an RL1 block with no conditions but if you want to increase the number of horses, there has to be some consent.
The Rural Residential is neither rural nor residential because it is 4000 m. You have your house there, and most likely you are going to be in an area where there are going to be other blocks like yours, so you live in a suburb, or if you are in an area surrounded by bigger blocks you are going to have big problems. I accept your argument that probably we would be better to declare RR around rural shopping centres, so they are more like suburbs, rather than in the middle of nowhere or in the middle of Rural Living 1 and Rural Living 2 because then we are asking for trouble.
As I said before, this is not final and it is not going to be final until I am satisfied that whatever comes to my desk clearly represents the wishes and will of the community. This is what is going to happen. Another point I want to make is that in your motion, you say: ‘… withdraw the proposed new Litchfield Area Plan and zoning map using zones taken from the draft Northern Territory Planning Scheme’. The reality is that this scheme takes the zones from the existing zones. This scheme is going to take 151 existing and 82 land use objectives. We are not taking land use objectives and zones from here to put into Litchfield. This incorporates the zones currently in Litchfield, and in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy to produce a town planning scheme for the whole Territory. That plan, quite correctly, was displayed in your office. However, the formal exhibition has not commenced yet. This is going to commence some time next year.
This document is a preliminary draft, it is not even a draft. To be formally accepted, I have to publicise it for the formal exhibition period, and ask for submissions to gauge the feel and reaction of the community, and have people like you and others come in and say: ‘This is not right. It would be better to change it’. So we can change it before we go for formal exhibition and submissions to this committee.
Let us not confuse that what we have there is not coming out of this book. It is what is in this book that is the proposed zoning Litchfield map for 2003. And, again, it is clear, a ‘proposed map’; it is not final, it is proposed. It will become final if everybody agrees to what it says and the minister signs it off. As I have said before, I have no intention of signing it off until I am satisfied that what the community wants is what I get on my desk.
You also said to move away from there and find another way to address the issue of zoning, with the exempt development permits. The problem is, it can be done, but this is a process that is not transparent, to the whim of a minister, and there is no right of appeal. It is a very stringent and very rigid process, which I do not think it is fair. However, until this one comes into effect, we have to have something in place, and because the land use objectives are accepted, and because I am bound by the current legislation to amend that one, we have to proceed to exhibition – which we have - and possible amendments or, if we do not accept the amendments as proposed in this one, to make changes to the land use objectives, which I have no problems doing.
The reason I will be opposing your motion is because I am bound by the Planning Act to proceed in a certain way and I cannot go back. At the same time, I am opposing your motion because there is clear misunderstanding about the zoning maps currently used, where they are coming from, and I now hope you understand that this actually incorporates the existing zoning maps, it is not the other way around.
I support what you say. I believe that we have to carefully consult with the community, and that is the reason why I want the community to have access to professional officers, town planners and people from the town planning section of my department, so they have a clear picture of what is proposed. Some people would argue they will not be RR, they will not subdivide the big blocks, and quite rightly said the majority do not want to live in an urban environment, they want to live in a rural environment. We have to accept the opinion of the majority. At the same time, if the majority says, we would like a particular area to be subdivided, we should accept that certain areas can be subdivided. In certain portions in Litchfield, we can subdivide, but in other areas we cannot. However, we have to be able to consult the community and for them to come back and provide us with this information.
We have discussed the keeping of horses and what you are permitted and what you are not permitted to do, and I can see the point of the young family who moves out there and buy a horse for Johnny, and they have no problem currently having a horse in RL1 and RL2. If they have a horse now on their properties, what we are proposing is, despite the fact you cannot have a horse in an RL1, you maintain your existing rights, so you are not going to miss the existing rights. As for losing some existing rights, and the price of your property will go down, the Australian Valuation Office says that this is not the case.
The same applies with horticulture. In horticulture, currently you are permitted, as a right in RL1 and RL2, you do not have to put in an application and there are no controls. What we say in the proposal is that it is proposed to require consent in Rural Living 1, but still permitted in Rural Living 2. It is not permitted in Rural Residential.
Horticulture has been a source of much conflict with people living in Litchfield. A particular issue, as I said before, was chemical drift. People were really concerned about it; people do not want to be subjected to chemicals, especially on still nights. I can understand some of the chemicals sprayed on mangoes can be quite potent because the droplets have a very small diameter, they can drift significant distances even on a still night, even with the smallest whiff of air, and that has been a concern to people.
As you are probably aware, the Litchfield Shire has some controls over clearing. People have actually asked me to tighten the controls up because there might be some speculative clearing in Litchfield. I have asked the department to provide me with a list of the number of blocks and the area to be cleared. From what I have seen, I do not think there is speculative or significant clearing before we introduce the new town planning scheme. However, I will keep my eye on it. The last thing I need is all of a sudden people realising there might be some controls on their blocks, deciding to clear big areas and especially areas with riparian vegetation, close to water courses and water bodies.
It is confusing; I have to admit that it takes me ages to actually get my mind around some of the concepts and ideas. Sometimes, I think it is crazy leaving town planners with crayons in their hands and a piece of paper. They come up with some wonderful concepts and some unbelievable and dreadful concepts. Once again, what is important is this is not for me to decide what is going to be in Litchfield; this is for the people in Litchfield to decide what they want in their area. If the people in Litchfield are happy to have Residential Rural – not the developers because they have a vested interest - but the people in Litchfield, I will be very happy to accommodate it and, at the same time, if Litchfield people want to maintain some of their rights with Rural Living 1 and Rural Living 2 I am very happy to accommodate that.
However, we have to be concerned about the effect on the environment by keeping excessive number of horses, and the rural amenity – as the member for Nelson said – three dogs in a Rural Living 1 block is okay. If we certify a block for five Rural Residential blocks, then you have 15 dogs living side by side, if you keep three dogs per block. This is something that is currently happening with residential blocks. We already have debate in Darwin and Palmerston regarding how many dogs you should keep in your house and why, and there are council by-laws restricting to only two dogs. Mind you, nobody abides by the by-laws, and quite a few houses have three dogs or more, and they create a racket, especially at night.
As for the member of Goyder, as I said before, a crash course in town planning does not help. You need to sit down more and study. The member for Nelson spent 10 years in practical town planning, as a councillor in the Litchfield Shire Council and, of course, it is not a hobby now, it is a passion. I understand that. However, I am disappointed to hear the member for Goyder make smart remarks. For his information, and especially regarding the comment he made about the house acquisition - that we acquired three houses while there was land over the other side that was higher and it would be easier to accommodate the tanks. I would like to remind the member for Goyder that these particular houses were built in the middle of a service corridor that had been there for a number of years. Unfortunately, it was not marked on the relevant maps, so some people were not aware where they were building their houses. The reality was, under the town planning scheme or planning maps of the area, there was a service corridor to provides services to the gas industry. To put it bluntly, the houses were built in the wrong spot and, of course, when the time came to acquire the land, the houses were already built and somebody did not travel the road to find out there was a number of houses built in that corridor.
As for one year of lobbying to save the bus route, I would like to correct that. Not a year of lobbying, there were three letters - one in November, one in January and one in July. As a matter of fact, these letters were written by the member for Goyder on behalf of his constituents to ask us for the buses to go a certain way out of Arnhem Highway. Not only that, but he misunderstood and he did not understand what we said in our letters. He mistranslated and misinterpreted and, as a result, the lady who was concerned was very agitated. To help out, the member for Goyder wrote on her behalf the letter that was published in the newspaper that was highly political, and the member for Goyder was trying to pass his political position in that letter, damning the Clare Martin government that all promises were not delivered. It was so embarrassing that, in the end, he had to admit it himself that he wrote that letter on behalf of his constituent using his own words and trying to pass his political lines through the name of somebody else.
This government is a government that listens, this government is government that responds. In that particular situation with the bus I travelled to that place, I had a personal view of the situation and I immediately asked my department to deviate the bus routes to provide safe arrival for the children, even if that meant that some people in Corroboree Park were disadvantaged and their children had to go to school 15 minutes early or arrive 15 minutes later. Now, I have the interesting situation of a number of parents from Corroboree Park complaining that their children go to school 15 minutes earlier and arrive home tired, 15 minutes later.
I assure the member for Nelson that, despite the fact that we will be opposing his motion, the consideration of issues you brought to our attention will be rigorous. I will refuse to sign anything off until I am satisfied that what I get is what the community wants. Certainly, I invite him to work with my department and me to try to find some of the issues and why not modify some of the issues the way the community in the area want? I do not think that I would like to fight the community or the member for Nelson because I know best. I do not know best but if we sit together and start discussing the issues, we will find a collaborative solution that will benefit the people in Litchfield.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is very interesting sitting over here listening to this debate and listening to the minister. It certainly takes me back to when I was the minister for Planning and the language was very much the same, minister. You have slipped into the language very nicely and that is good to see.
Ms Lawrie: He is a good minister. Better than you.
Mr BALDWIN: Well, that might be your opinion. But, certainly, you have picked up the language very nicely: ‘a government that listens, won’t be doing anything without everybody being happy, and happy to work with you’, and all that sort of thing, and that is great. It is great because as you are now finding out, planning is never a simple beast to deal with. There are always going to be issues from one quarter or another. And something as big as land use objectives for the entire Litchfield area are always going to be controversial. And as you are finding out, you are appreciating that it takes some time to get through all of the issues.
I see this recent set of issues have caused you to once again extend the time for submissions and public consultations, and you have set a new round of meetings to ameliorate the issues that could be out there. An indication to me that you have not sorted all of the issues, and nor will you ever, and you have recognised that, because we have talked about it. But you will get to a point where you have to move on. And, as you have said, the LUOs are one thing. They have been out there for a long time, it has been a long process. Now you have applied the zonings that go, as you must, with those land us objectives. But it seems to me that you have made one very fundamental and critical mistake in what you have done here, and that is what the motion is all about tonight. Certainly, I support the intent of this motion, and it could do with a bit of clarification, and I will come to that.
It seems to me that there was no reason that you had to use the terminology of the new, and apply some of the new zonings that are going to come in with the amalgamated NT Planning Scheme. In fact, you did not have to, and that could have been a political decision that you made. You sit there, your officers who are all dedicated, and good officers - and I am not being disparaging to them in any way; I am sure they presented good reasons for proposing some of the new zonings that will come in with the NT Planning Scheme to apply them to Litchfield - but you, as minister, have the final decision. You are the head planner. You could have said: ‘No, hang on. It is all getting a bit too confusing. If we now apply the proposed zonings to Litchfield, which has been going on for such a long time under the original zonings …’, or the current zonings, if you like because the new ones under the Planning Scheme are proposed at the moment, you could have said: ‘Let us bring that in across the Territory either bit by bit or all in one hit at some later date’, and you are talking about putting them on display for public comment some time next year, rather than applying them here and causing confusion.
If you were to get rid of part (b), which, in my mind, is superfluous to the motion because if you do not have the proposed zonings amalgamated into the plans, all the motion is asking you to do is withdraw the proposed new Litchfield Area Plan and zoning maps using zonings taken from the draft Northern Territory Planning Scheme. If you dropped (b), you will fall back to the current one; and (c) is to notify all land-holders, which you have said you are doing. I congratulate you for doing that because, unfortunately, these days consultation, as you have found and as I am aware, is all about not just posting things in windows in electorate offices and having stands around various places, but asking and telling and informing individuals who are affected by changes such as planning changes directly. That is what they want these days; they want to know what is going on and how it affects their backyard. You have done that.
I will make a suggestion; I am not going to move an amendment to this motion, but maybe if the proposer, the member for Nelson, wanted to take (b) out, which seems to be causing some problem to the minister, it depends how you read it. All it then says is take off the proposed zonings, take them out of the windows, go back to the current zonings that apply to Litchfield and move on from there.
You can then have your debates later on about the whole integrated NT Planning Scheme. That is going to be an interesting one, too, as I am sure you are aware. If you have 6500 people affected here, we are talking about 100 000 people who will be affected when you introduce the NT Planning Scheme. It is going to take some massaging, and some wide consultation, and unfortunately, trying to get through to people what it is you are trying to achieve. I support it, obviously; I started it. It is something that needs to be done in the Territory for very good reasons. In the future, I am sure, government in general will be applauded for combining the zonings across the whole of the NT, as that proposal suggests.
I am not going to get into whether this zoning is right or wrong in this particular area. They are arguments that are going to carry on, I am sure, for some time yet. As I said, not everybody will be satisfied. I certainly support the intent of this motion, which is to avoid some of the confusion. Do what the motion says: withdraw the proposed new Litchfield Area Plan and zoning maps using zones taken from the draft Northern Territory Planning Scheme. That is what it is asking you to do. That is something simple. It is something that is within your control, minister. You may have some problems with the zone that is RR at the moment. Is that properly defined under the old scheme? You might have to have something there as a way of getting through and lessening the confusion.
It is confusing to come in at this late hour, after people have been trying to get their heads around the LUOs and now the zonings, to then apply a mish-mash of zonings from the current, and incorporating the proposed, which have not had wide exposure in the general community. They have had wide exposure already in some quarters, like councils, local governments and so on, but not to the general public. Certainly, I am sure they do not yet have an understanding of what it could mean to them and the effect. We support the motion, and I am sure that by dropping part (b) that you could support the motion too.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, before I introduce any amendments, I should probably just ask for a wink and a nod - if I remove part (b) could the government give any indication? Okay, well I will not prolong the debate down that path.
I will sum up on a few things that have been raised. Minister, I appreciate that you are now sending out letters to people, and I also appreciate that you are saying that you will work with me and people in the rural area. But I have to be honest with you, a lot of the people whom I have visited are cranky. I have five or six e-mails on my desk at the moment from people indicating that they do not want this change to their land. Most of them are two hectare blocks. There were certainly some people, for example, the lady who rang me yesterday, who is in the process of buying a one hectare block. She was expecting to have a horse on that block, and she is not sure whether the sale will go through. I have said to her that there are some issues with one hectare blocks, as you related - and I sent you a letter - that does not mean you cannot have a horse, it might mean that you have to get consent and you have to show how you would manage it.
At the present time, the proposals, as shown, are telling her that she could buy that land, and if she does not get a horse on it in time, not only will it not be existing, she will not be able to have one at all. I know the member for Daly asked how we would fix the RR zone if we do not have it. We just fix it by allowing what is existing and putting in some exemptions within that zone. That zone has existed over that land for the last 20 years. It has not caused a problem. I think a lot of the problems will disappear if you left that zone on it with a few clauses. There are people who ask me what I am going to do about it. I have said: ‘What I am going to do is use the softly, softly approach first’. And then if the softly, softly approach does not work, I suppose we go a little bit harder. If it still does not work, we have to go harder again to convince the government that this change is necessary.
I note, minister, that in the letter you sent out, or you are sending out - and I have a sort of a slightly shrunken copy - that you have a series – well, they are not really meetings, they are places where members of staff of the department will meet members of the community. This issue has arisen from Whitewood Park and Howard River Park, yet there is not actually one meeting in that area. I know you might say they can go to Coolalinga or to Litchfield Shire. I believe you need to have some people either available at the Howard Springs shopping centre, or at the Howard hall, so they can talk to your officers about the changes.
You also say planning is about what people want. I agree with that to some extent. However, you have to be careful; sometimes planning what people want turns into money. Governments also have a role to lead for the future generations, and if you just went down the path of what the people want, well I would probably say I would not mind, cut my block up in 10 little blocks. It will make me a nice little handsome profit. But is that good for the overall future of Litchfield Shire? Probably not. So, it is a mixture of hearing what people are saying, but also showing leadership. Whilst I accept that you will get responses, you also have to show some leadership. You have to keep in mind the very thing that I said at the beginning: the aim of this Litchfield land area plan is to maintain the rural character. If you do not do that, then you might as well scrap the Litchfield Land Use Objectives.
I hope the government will learn from this because - I am not trying to be smart here, but you did put out and advertise that people could put submissions in. You probably have a certain number of submissions. As soon as I went around to people and said: ‘Do you know this could happen to your land?’, all of a sudden the government said: ‘We will send out 6000 letters and extend the period of time’. I am quite grateful for that, but it does send out a message that the government is a bit all over the place here. It extended the original submission for a couple of weeks - I think they closed on 7 June. Now it is closing on the 16th. The message from people is the government is not on top of the issues here. I am grateful for what you have done, but it certainly should have been done better.
I will reiterate a couple of things. I believe you will fix the problem by leaving the RL1 there. I believe, as I said, you can look at the RR - we can debate that at another time. There is no land presently zoned RR. As a debate, it will be held at the Development Consent Authority, I am sure. However, you could leave the RR. You could still leave it under Future Uses in Weddell - that is not going to do any harm - and you can delete it from the Howard Springs area. You would solve yourselves a big problem.
There are other issues. You talked about, for instance, horses. I quite agree with what you are saying, that on some blocks you might be able to keep a horse and on other blocks you cannot. That needs discussion. There are some grey areas in there.
On the issue of horticulture, I would be the first one to say that it is a good idea to have consent for horticulture. However, let us not put horticulture just down to mangoes. Horticulture can be growing heliconias. Horticulture can be quite adequate on a one hectare block growing flowers. That is one good reason for saying do not prohibit it, let the Development Consent Authority look at it.
There are a number of other issues that need to be debated. One of the concerns that some people have is that, if they are in the new RR zone, and there are a number of people with five acres or two hectares of mangoes – and, for instance, they wanted to chop 20 trees down and replace them with, say, rambutans, or they wanted to regraft them or replant them with a new variety of mangoes - the word that is going around is that they would not be allowed because it is prohibited. I do not know how accurate that is, but that is what I have been told. There are many little issues like that. Take issues such as if I am a vegetable grower or a flower grower. I have stopped growing vegetables for two years. Am I still a vegetable and flower grower if I want to continue in that operation later on? If I have a horse and it dies, I do not have a horse. If I do not have enough money to buy another horse for four or five years, can I get another horse or do I have to get consent?
There are a lot of those little grey areas that need to be clarified because there are a few people going around, not sure which way they can go.
Minister, just quickly, I know there are a couple of little things that I forgot earlier. One was that I am hoping that you may hold off on BP Palms until we get around and have a look at it. I am not sure how we are travelling yet but I also want to include the industrial land I am talking about. I believe I can convince you when you see what land we are talking about, that there is no way it should be zoned under this new zone. However, I will have more to say about that later.
About the community being confused, the community will always find planning difficult; I still find planning difficult. However, you have to make a bigger effort at the very beginning to explain these changes. Sometimes the department puts them through hoping no one will see them, because they know they will be controversial. Anyone who attended the meeting at Bees Creek School about four years ago when the issue of banning horticulture was on the agenda knows what it is like. One of the things that should have been learned from that meeting was what Earl James raised in his report on planning - that if you are having meetings, do not get the department to chair its own meeting. If you have the department trying to put forward a case and it is also the chairperson, it makes life a bit difficult. Put in some neutral people at times. I have seen other meetings where neutral people have been brought in. Sometimes, it is worth bringing in neutral people; it takes some of the angst out of it.
With regards to the 4000 m2 blocks you mentioned for horses, I am not advocating that. I am advocating that, if you leave a consent, you can sort it out on the spot. I am not saying it is a good idea to have a horse on a 4000 m2 block but, if you leave it as ‘RL1 with consent’, you will solve that problem. The Development Consent Authority will use its head and say: ‘Sorry, your block of land is too small’, or whatever. It can be sorted out.
You mentioned also that you did not agree with the idea of using the Exceptional Development Permit because you cannot appeal against it and it is very stringent in its rules. But you have the SU zones still and that can go through the normal path of the Development Consent Authority. So you can get around it using that method.
I will quickly touch on land clearing as I know we are going late. One of the confusing things in this Litchfield Area Plan is that you have two clauses ‘land clearing’. You have the main clause which comes under new section 22. 4 which has a heading ‘Clearing of Native Vegetation in Zones HB, PA, RR, RL1, RL2 etc’, it has RR in there. It says in there that you can clear one hectare of your land of native vegetation. Now RR is an average lot size of one hectare which means you can clear your whole block. If I saw that I would say: ‘Right, I can clear my whole block’. But you have to go and dig out of here another section under that clause under the RR zone which tells you something different, and you are leaving yourself wide open to confusion. People will see the clearing guideline and somewhere else in the book there is a section that says that you can only clear enough land in RR for a house and an area. They need to take the RR out of the Clearing Vegetation Guidelines or they need to put a clause in there. It will cause confusion. You will have blocks cleared and they will say they read the guidelines: ‘Yes, I know you did, but you did not read the whole book’. When it comes to clearing, that needs changes.
As regards spraying, it mentions spraying, and that has been a reason why the RR zone is supposed to have this buffer. If you make a blanket statement that all RR zones will have two hectares because there has to be a buffer you do not take into account what is existing in the area you are applying this zone – for example, are there any mangoes or other commercial horticulture next door? Might be all bush, so, what do you need a buffer for? The other thing is you are changing commercial horticulture to consent. By changing it to consent, if you have just built a subdivision next door to it, it is less likely you are going to approve horticulture on the other side. So, much as I agree with a buffer I think it can be done without having to rely on this two hectare subdivision as a be all and end all.
Minister, thank you for your contribution. I will still push these zones. As the member for Daly said, all I am asking is to use the existing zones existing. I am quite happy to have a new Litchfield Area Plan but use the existing zones, not these ones. I do not mind these ones coming in later when everyone has agreed to them. Great idea. But because of the confusion that could occur - because you might change these ones as you say; these have not been up for debate properly yet, in two years’ time they might be out - but we will have some of these zones stuck in our existing area plan which may have to be changed again. I do not think it will do any harm to anyone to leave them as we have them presently.
I know it has been a long debate and for some people who come from the middle of the Northern Territory it has probably been riveting. The issues do apply everywhere. It is just that Litchfield Shire is a big area, it has a lot of industry, it has a lot of development and these issues are important for the future. It can be important for people’s future as well. Many people have invested money into the rural area and for that land to be devalued, as it could in some cases, that needs to be pointed out to the government and hopefully they will change. So minister, even though you have said that you will not support this motion, I hope you will take some of what I have said on its merit. As I said, I know that there are people out there that if you do not change they are going to ask me to have some public meetings. I hope we can get some changes done before that. Otherwise, I know there will be people putting pressure on the government to change.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: So with that - I am sure they will, yes. I move that the motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
MOTOR VEHICLES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 171)
(Serial 171)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Motor Vehicles Act to make it easier for the Northern Territory public who live in rural areas across the Northern Territory to register their all terrain vehicles or quad bikes; a quad bike being the conventional four-wheelers you see on many farms and rural properties, used both recreationally and for commercial purposes.
The principal act being amended is the Motor Vehicles Act and the bill I propose will that amend act by inserting after section 8 the following new subsection, that is section 8AA, which compels the Registrar to register a quad bike or four-wheeler subject to certain conditions, which includes a requirement by the registered owner to register the vehicle to allow the quad bike or ATV to be ridden on a public road within daylight hours. In that regard, it is only a short bill of relatively straightforward reading. It is contained succinctly on two pages.
In some interstate jurisdictions, there is a rural registration which allows certain items of farm machinery, including ATVs or quad bikes, to be ridden on public roads during certain hours and subject to certain conditions. This amendment is aimed solely at dealing with the issue of quad bikes in rural areas.
In my electorate of Goyder, there are many block owners who own quad bikes and who should, in my view, be allowed on weekends to ride their quad bike out of their property, along the edge of the road, perhaps even cross the odd public road to visit their neighbours or swim in the local creek during the Wet Season. I seek the support of honourable members for this bill. It will demonstrate that we, as a parliament, trust Territorians, we trust the people who live in the bush on these rural properties enough to give them the privilege to ride their quad bikes or ATVs for recreational purposes on public roads.
There are conditions that you can attach, and this is an example. In the rural area, as in some other jurisdictions, you have your bike, which is registered for $20 a year. You can drive out of your driveway along the verge of a public road, the condition being that you do not roar up and down the road, but you can cross a road if that road has to be crossed to get to a another property. Ultimately, it is a daylight registration. It is a practical, commonsense-type registration that will contribute to the lifestyle we enjoy, those of us who live on rural properties.
Subsection (6) of the proposed new section 8AA defines what ‘quad bike’ means. I will read a short portion of that onto the record:
- … ‘quad bike’ means an all terrain vehicle that –
(b) is fitted with lights that comply with the applicable Australian Design Rule; and
(c) otherwise complies with the standards and specifications prescribed by the Regulations.
I also propose that the regulations would prescribe a number of makes and models of quads, or all terrain vehicles, which are regularly purchased from a number of authorised dealers in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs regions, which include, from Darwin’s perspective, the standard agricultural quad bikes, which are purchased from Yamaha, Suzuki, Honda, and Kawasaki, and, of course, Baxter’s Motorcycle Engineering, which carries a range of Polaris motorcycles and some other types of bikes.
The plan would be that these fairly stock standard quads or ATVs would be part of the regulations. If you buy one, they have the basic lights on them, they have a headlight and a tail-light. We are not talking about blinkers, we are talking about daylight registration of the machines which, ostensibly, are roadworthy. They are safe enough to be on the road. Rural people should not be required to look over their shoulder, and suffer the burden of committing the offence of driving unregistered and uninsured every time they wish to travel a short distance along the edge of a road to visit a neighbour, to swim the local creek, or just disappear off the end of the road and into the local swamp or some sort of opening there where they can go for a ride.
This particular amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act would register those quad bikes, or ATVs, so that the carefree and relaxed lifestyle, which many rural people enjoy today, will continue to be enjoyed by the next generation of Territorians who have chosen to live in the rural area, and their children will be growing up there.
Of course, not to encourage or make any admissions, it is common knowledge that, certainly in the past when there were fewer people living in the rural area, it was common to see four-wheelers being driven on the edge of roads. That was, technically, an offence. The police exercised a fair bit of discretion if you were just putting along the road, ‘dinking’ your better half, you might have your dog on the back going down the creek for a swim, or you might be going for a ride. Normally, if you were sensible, you did not attract the attention of anybody. Nevertheless, if you were a law-abiding citizen, if you did that, that technically would be an offence, and you were really relying upon the good nature of our police force and the exercise of some sort of prosecutorial discretion. This particular piece of legislation would remove that ambiguity, and that doubt and worry every time you went for a ride on your bike, if you did that outside your five acre property, or whatever, in the rural area and went down the road.
Obviously, this type of legislation is capable of being abused, like all other pieces of legislation. There will be those who will not act appropriately. I want to put on the record, honourable members, that these registered quad bikes and all-terrain vehicles will still be subject to the many other traffic rules and regulations which apply to motor vehicle users on public roads. It will still be an offence for a person, even on a quad bike, to drive or ride at a speed or manner dangerous to the public. Of course, the failure to comply with one of those speed limits, which may be attached in the regulations, ‘Yes, you can ride your bike, but you can’t go faster than 40 km/h, or maybe 60 km/h’. If you did not comply with those regulations then, of course, the remedy would be, the bike, or the ATV, would no longer be registered and you would be once again running the gauntlet of travelling unregistered and uninsured on a public road.
The term ‘rural area’ has not specifically been defined in this piece of legislation. Rather, it is left to be prescribed by the regulations. I have explained why that has occurred. I am indebted to my friend, the member for Daly, for his contribution in relation to this particular aspect of the proposed bill, and also to the advice and assistance I received from Parliamentary Counsel. The reason is the term ‘rural area’ means that part of the Territory prescribed by the regulation. Whilst the Litchfield Shire, I suppose, can be easily delineated as an area where this particular form of registration would apply, it is not the case in Katherine and Alice Springs. The municipalities of Alice Springs and Katherine actually cover a number of five acre blocks. The ones in Alice Springs are the south side of the MacDonnell Ranges where there are some rural people living. Therefore, the plan would be that the regulations would, by way of a red line clearly delineate that ‘this is a rural area, these are five acre blocks, this is where the particular rule of rego can be applied and granted’. Certainly, in places like the city of Darwin and Palmerston it would be inappropriate. In the core of Katherine of course, it would be inappropriate. In Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy, residential-type areas would not come into the category of a rural area and would not be the subject of this rural registration.
There is a view, and I suspect there are the safety Nazis who exist in our community who would carry on about, ‘Oh, it is too dangerous’ and there will be some weak excuse they will rely upon for not supporting this type of initiative and legislation. Really, any of those types of assertions are really a cop-out and they should review their view on life because, ultimately, rural people, the people of the Northern Territory, can be trusted. They can be trusted in other jurisdictions interstate, and there is actually no reason why Territory people should not be given a similar trust.
If there is a lingering concern which the government thinks has to be addressed, rather than just knocking this sensible and minor amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, it could be a situation where any incidences could be reviewed and, perhaps in 18 months or two years time, there could be a review to see what sort of feedback the police have. We can certainly canvass our respective electorates - those of us who are privileged enough to have a rural electorate - to hear what people are saying, and to see whether it is causing problems or not.
I am sure rural people can be trusted and should be given the opportunity. I can indicate the opposition undertakes to work closely with government to refine the conditions which would be attached to the registration of these vehicles through the regulations, delineating the types of bikes which are covered by this umbrella of rural registration, and also delineating the precise boundaries of what is a rural area and what is not. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 173)
(Serial 173)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. The purpose of the bill is self-evident by the straightforward terms in which it has been drafted. I am indebted once again to Parliamentary Counsel for their assistance in preparing this amendment to the Northern Territory Criminal Code. The proposed bill is to be inserted after Part V, Division 1 of the Northern Territory Criminal Code Act creating a new division headed 1A, ‘Offences against public sensibilities’. The new section 125AA ‘Possession etc, of dog or cat furs’, will specifically make it an offence punishable by imprisonment for two years, any person who possesses, manufactures or sells any dog or cat fur product in the Northern Territory.
Members will no doubt be aware that a fur trade exists in some parts of Europe and Asia where domestic cats and dogs are bred in captivity in inhumane and cruel circumstances, then slaughtered in an inhumane way for the sole purposes of procuring their furs. The dog and cat furs are then sold into some of the fashion houses in Europe, America, and there is some evidence that this has already occurred in Australia in our eastern states. Some countries have moved to outlaw this type of trade and Darwin as the gateway to Asia is potentially an entry point for this type of product.
Honourable members will note that pursuant to subsection (2) of the proposed bill, the simple offence as it applies to possession of domestic cat and dog pelts, does not apply to the possession for possession of those products of a personal pet that is deceased including those preserved through taxidermy. It is also a specific defence to a prosecution for an offence against this section if the defendant proves that the dog or cat fur was obtained entirely from feral animals. There is a feral cat pelt industry, albeit a very small one in the Northern Territory; there is a fellow who sells cat furs, they are purely feral and they are in a completely different category from the type of conduct that this bill is aimed at.
The bill would send a message to those members of the community who have or are considering engaging this inhumane harvesting of dogs, puppies, cats and kittens for their furs. There have been reports of some coats on sale made up of up to 20 Dalmatians puppies, out of their furs and ...
Dr Toyne: It is the 101 Dalmatians bill.
Mr MALEY: Sorry, German shepherd puppies.
Mr Kiely: You watch too many Walt Disney movies.
Mr MALEY: And Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, just for the sake of honourable members who I suspect will ...
Mr Kiely: Well, what about poodles? What about poodles, I ask you?
Members interjecting.
Mr MALEY: I won’t go into the – for the information honourable members, the bill is effectively distilled from the Dog and Cat Protection Act 2000 from the United States and has certainly been litigated and there are many laws on it in that particular jurisdiction. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Proposed Appointment of Select Committee to Investigate Changes to Sentencing Act
Proposed Appointment of Select Committee to Investigate Changes to Sentencing Act
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move - That -
(1) the Assembly appoint a select committee to investigate possible changes to the Sentencing Act
and other relevant legislation specifically regarding that legislation relating to murder,
manslaughter and dangerous acts;
(2) the committee travel widely through the Territory and other jurisdictions so as to obtain a wide
range of options and opinions on the issue of sentencing for murder, manslaughter and dangerous acts;
(3) the committee report back to the Assembly by the August 2004 parliamentary sittings; and
(4) the membership of the committee and any other matters relating to the conduct of this reference be
the subject of a subsequent resolution.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have raised this issue because the government has made some statements about changes to mandatory life for murder, and says that it has done so following a review into sentencing for murder offences.
I have no problem with the government having a review, but what concerned me was that I felt the review was too limited in its scope. It should have covered the areas which the government is now talking about reviewing. I look at the minister’s media release of 30 June 2003, where he said:
- This review of manslaughter and dangerous offences is expected to take at least six months.
The minister is saying we will now have another review regarding manslaughter and dangerous act offences. I would have thought that it would have been better to have a review which covered the whole lot because when it comes to murder and manslaughter there is some debate over how those two offences are interpreted. I remember a case, I think it was in Woodleigh Gardens, where a man walked in and shot another person dead who, he said, had been sexually abusing his son. I do not think that person was charged with murder; it would have been manslaughter or something else. You would have to ask: ‘Wasn’t it murder with mitigating circumstances?’
There are a number of cases that have occurred in the Territory where there has been a grey area between the two. I felt that if we had a select committee, or maybe even an existing committee, that travelled around the Territory and made itself available for all sections of the community, whether it was indigenous sections of the community, the broader public in the urban areas, victims of crime, perhaps family of perpetrators of crime - all groups - it may have been a better way to have a review. Minister, the review that you had going over the last year-and-a-half, whilst I have no doubt that you did meet many people, I felt should have perhaps been a more public review. I imagine the review was sent to people who had concerns in this area. However, the issues of mandatory life sentencing and issues surrounding that are fairly controversial at times. They certainly take up the front page of the newspaper. Be that as it may, it is important that as a parliament we discuss these issues, and that the public, especially members of the public who are affected, have a chance to have their say.
Whilst I understand that the government has had a review on murder, here is an opportunity to establish a select committee to look at the whole range of things. I am not sure when the minister intends to propose legislation related to the results of that review. If the minister is not intending to do that quickly, would it matter if we went back one step and brought the issues of manslaughter and dangerous acts into this whole debate? That way, when we are finished, we at least have a package that looks at the whole issue of these crimes holistically to see how they relate to one another. I must admit that I would like to see some debate about whether we share the American system that relates to murder, degrees of murder and, therefore, people are sentenced according to the severity of the act. Some people tell me that already exists, and that is why we have manslaughter. However, it would have been nice to have a debate. It is at least 10 years since the Criminal Code brought in these changes, and it is probably time for a review of the whole piece of legislation.
Minister, I am not going to talk greatly on it. Other people might have some views about it. I am putting it forward as a possible option to deal with an issue which is a very serious issue, which does affect many people: victims, perpetrators, families, indigenous people, and the wider public. I thought that by having this committee travelling throughout the Territory, and even looking at other jurisdictions, we may have come up with a more holistic and more widespread approach to all these issues.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I place on record some of my observations in relation to Notice No 6, sponsored by my colleague, the member for Nelson.
The issue of sentencing, indeed, appropriate sentencing, is always a topical subject in the community. There is no doubt that in an almost overwhelming majority of elections in this country, in all jurisdictions, the issue of law and order invariably comes to the fore. People are interested in the topic. They are interested in what they read in the papers and in what they watch on television, and there is no doubt that the drama associated with television programs, police-related, or law enforcement, attract the attention and imagination of Territorians, like people right across Australia.
It seems that legislation which contains penalties - the Sentencing Act contains a number of guidelines - but the penalties which relate to murder, manslaughter and dangerous acts are contained in the Criminal Code. That legislation is really reflecting the community’s view of a particular form of conduct. As community views change then, of course, the penalties, which are appropriately imposed, will also change.
In that regard, feedback from the community, from members of the general public, and not just the usual protagonists, should always be welcomed. A committee which is able to go out and genuinely talk to real people on the ground, as well as the various support groups asking what people think about these scenarios, is something which could be constructive and contribute to the parliament gauging what the community view is of a particular sanctioned or unsanctioned conduct.
There is no doubt that prison is notoriously a waste of a man’s life, but of course the community must be protected from some individuals. In some individuals there is a need for a personal deterrent to make sure the message is sent home to them, that if you commit these types of offences, then you can expect a lengthy term of imprisonment. In civilised jurisdictions like ours, courts are not courts of retribution. The sentencing process is complicated, but it is a massive exercise in commonsense. There is a wealth of considerations and factors which have been built in the common law system for many years, some of which have been reduced, in terms of the legislation, and contained in the Sentencing Act.
I, too, am not going to labour this particular motion, but I indicate that I support the general terms of the motion. I do not think there can be any harm done by consulting the wider community to seek what their views are regarding penalties to some of the most serious offences we have in the Northern Territory, which includes murder, manslaughter and dangerous act.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the motion.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I indicate at the outset that the government cannot offer support for this motion. However, we can offer you a process. We have made it very clear in recent times that the government, after a very long period of deliberation, is going to reform the current provisions under the Sentencing Act and the Parole Board Act. We have made it very clear – and I note the member for Nelson quoted from the media release that I put out at that stage, in announcing those changes – as to what changes we are proposing to bring into the parliament.
I can confirm to the member that we will all have a chance to see them next week in legislative form, with the debate in the next sittings. There will be plenty of time, certainly, for members of parliament to scrutinise the legislation that will put into effect the package that we have announced. I believe, given the relative urgency to provide a government response to the issue of the murder offences, that we do need to proceed. We certainly cannot afford another 12 months of uncertainty in that area.
Regarding the other half of the process that I am offering you, as you quite rightly point out, there will be a review into the current crimes of manslaughter and dangerous act causing death. We believe, as you pointed out, we need to check the relativity between murder offences and manslaughter and dangerous act. We have certainly, again, indicated that, being the only jurisdiction that has the dangerous act offence, we would be looking, amongst other things in the review, to see whether it is appropriate to remove that offence from our code and to look, perhaps, instead to a more carefully calibrated system of manslaughter offences, in the same that we have introduced a number of levels of severity in murder offences. We believe we have to balance two things which have already come out in this short debate to date. That is first of all to allow the courts to judge these crimes with flexibility enough to place them on a scale - we do not believe that all murders are the same as one another or all manslaughters – and that the court has to have some capacity to build into the sentencing and the non-parole arrangements some sense of the relative seriousness of each of the crimes that they encounter in the cases.
The other side of it - again, as has been pointed out in your introductory speech to this debate – is that you do have to reflect the community expectations. These are the most serious crimes on our statute books and we have to make sure that there is that seriousness reflected in the outcomes from our courts. We have tried, in the current package over the murder offences, to strike that balance between a guarantee to the public that sentencing outcomes and non-parole arrangements will be of sufficient seriousness so that the way in which the public views these crimes is reflected in the court outcomes. By introducing two elements in the reform of murder offences: one being that non-parole periods of more than 20 years are possible right up to the term of natural life; and the upper level, the aggravated level, of 25 years non-parole for murders that involve particular characteristics. I will not take up time in this debate repeating what has already gone out in writing quite clearly. Also, we are allowing a very limited category of exceptional circumstances for things like battered wife, euthanasia and excessive self-defence situations.
We have built a degree of flexibility into the way in which a court can judge on particular killing offences that come before them where there is intent and where it is clear that some form of murder has occurred. We have provided the courts with an ongoing capacity to set non-parole periods right up to a non-parole period of the term of that person’s life. What we have also maintained and again, this is with the safety and interest of the community very firmly at heart, is the mandatory life head sentence; meaning that if you kill someone in the Northern Territory deliberately and with intent, you will be supervised under some arrangement for the rest of your life. You will either be in gaol or you will be out on a parole arrangement being supervised by the Community Corrections Parole Services within our systems.
I certainly feel that we have struck a good balance in the package that has already been announced and will be enacted through parliament at the start of next week. I will be welcoming the comments of all members of parliament on this pretty important reform. I can report that this is an area of reform that is very well suited to masochists. These are very difficult issues and they are issues that involve moral self-scrutiny; every one of the members of government has had to wrestle with their own world views and moralities about this, equally. We have had to deal with some very difficult legal issues that are involved in these issues of crime and punishment.
You will understand, having now finally reached a decision on the areas that have been announced, we are certainly not going to be revisiting them. We will enact them. Parliament, as it always does with legislation, should scrutinise the outcomes of law that is put into place and I would expect that over the ensuing years, that scrutiny will be provided by this House. As regards the ongoing review of manslaughter and dangerous act, first of all I offer a briefing to any member who wants to know what issues we will be canvassing in that review. We welcome input from any member of parliament, as I always do when we are looking at any sort of legislative reform in my area of portfolio. I can certainly guarantee that proposals put forward in the areas that are encompassed by those current offences within our Criminal Code will be taken seriously by the review group.
I cannot give you an exact time frame on the ongoing review of those other areas. As you said in your contribution, we do not want this to be unresolved for a long period into the future. We would like to get the overall reform completed and in place. We believe that by tying down the areas of offences in the murder category, we now have a good benchmark that is now set in place and we can now calibrate the use of the other offences to what is already going to be put into law. That task lies ahead of us. I would certainly be trying to promote a process that is something in the order of six months, rather than taking a huge amount of new time.
The last thing I will say in reply to this proposition is that people who feel strongly about these issues find a channel to get their point of view across. We are all aware of it; whether we are talking to someone at their front door, reading letters to the editor, at public meetings where these issues are canvassed, you find very polarised opinions about these issues. You talk to a family of a victim of one of these killings and there is no doubt about the strength of their feelings and you can totally understand that. We have to take account of the particular circumstances of each of the groups that might want to comment on this. One thing is for absolute certain: you are not going to go widely around the community and find that there is a consensus about this. There is everything from quite libertarian to very draconian positions.
What that says is no matter how much you review and consult, we, as a government, have to come to a decision and give our reasons, and we will be judged, as governments always are, on the rightness and logic of that decision. We are very aware of that. Ultimately, governments do have to take a position and then defend that position with the reasons they have used to reach that decision.
We believe we have done that with the package we have already released. We will consider all opinions going into the rest of the review. Similarly, I will be getting up here, I hope, in the sort of time frame that I am talking about, to announce the rest of the reforms in relation to these killing offences.
With those comments, member for Nelson, we certainly will not be supporting the course of action you propose, but we are not belittling it, either. We believe that we are offering a process where you will have your opportunity to respond both to the review and to the parliamentary debate.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to put on the record my disappointment that this is not going to get up. I presume it is going to be done on the numbers. Such is life. That is the government’s prerogative when they have a majority in the Chamber.
Nevertheless, I do wish to say that the unlawful killing of citizens in our society is obviously the most serious offence that we can turn our attention to. The minister is quite right in saying it is an emotive issue. For that reason, I hope that the government would turn to the parliament for some guidance as we are, as a group, probably a greater representative of the collective consciousness of the people of the Northern Territory than the government is in their own area. That is the reason I express my disappointment in relation to this. I was supportive of the idea of a select committee looking into these issues.
The Attorney-General has outlined a time frame of six months. There is no reason why a select committee could not achieve it in the same sort of time frame. I am sad to see that the government has withdrawn into itself to take control of this issue without allowing proper parliamentary scrutiny, and the opportunity for the citizens of the Northern Territory to also express themselves directly to us, the members of the parliament.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I too support the comments of the member for Macdonnell. He has essentially said it all, that when it comes to consulting the community, and taking on board the view of the community, that has been the supposed hallmark of this new open, honest and accountable Labor government.
In this regard, an example of a lack of consultation is the decision that just been made, as I am aware of it, and I am happy to stand corrected, in that for the crime of murder, the decision has been made that there will be a minimum detention period of 25 years prior to parole. That decision has been made by the Labor government and, in my understanding, with a total lack of consultation with the community. In that regard I have no doubt that the Attorney-General himself would be one who would probably feel that that is too onerous because he is on the public record as suggesting, in the past, that people convicted of that crime should be released at an earlier time than that. Certainly, if consultation has taken place, it would appear prima facie that the Attorney-General has been rolled.
It underscores the fact that, as he said, within the community there are widely divergent views. I accept the fact that a parliamentary committee seeking those widely divergent views would not be able to form any clear view as to what the community wanted. In seeking those views, it would provide a degree of bone fides for the government to then proceed along a particular course of action, based on the recommendations of that committee. The structure of the committee would be such that it would be bipartisan, or at least representative of this parliament, which in itself represents the community.
For a government to embark on changes to the degrees of murder, the classifications of murder and the penalties to be applied to those classifications, or whatever the new system espoused was to be, I would have thought that this particular motion provides an ideal opportunity for the government to proceed along that particular path, with a wide-ranging and consultative review which, at the end of the day, whilst there would never be wholehearted support, I believe the government and the opposition would be strengthened in whatever decision was made. Sadly, that is not the view and I am disappointed that the government is not taking the opportunity to take up this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their comments, and especially the Attorney-General for his comments. The reason for putting this forward was to try to perhaps, you might say, take some of the heat out. It would be impossible to take the heat out of this particular issue altogether. However, if people saw that the government was working in a bipartisan way - and one way is through a select committee, or it could be a legislative and constitutional committee that might have been able to do something similar - people would have seen the government as a whole working together to try to come up with some reasonable outcomes.
It is a very important issue. It does create a lot of debate, and it does create a lot of heat. As you say, minister, certainly the members of the public can be polarised one way or the other on this particular issue.
Whilst it is probably too late to apply it to the murder review, I believe that if the government is looking at setting up the review board, maybe it would still consider - you might not agree with this motion tonight - when you are in Cabinet that it might be wiser to go down the path of having a select committee travel around the Territory, bringing in people from all places. After all, many of the people we have in gaol for some of these crimes do come from outlying places. Many of those people are indigenous people. It is an area I believe that a select committee could have worked well together. It could have allowed people to have some rational debate, sometimes away from the headlines which can distort what people think, or can sometimes lead, or even influence what people think, rather than allowing people to listen to some rational debate about the whole issue in a much more quiet environment and atmosphere.
So, minister, even though I am disappointed that the government obviously is not going to support it, I put it to you that perhaps you will consider it in another forum amongst your own party. I believe this is one of those areas that should be open, and we will end up with better legislation because of it. Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 172)
(Serial 172)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Today I bring to this House an amendment to the Liquor Act to change the way in which the government and the courts may be able to deal with the issue of drunks, who may be only realistically described as serial drunks. These are the people who become the face of what is not acceptable in our community, the community of the Northern Territory. The bill deals with what should be a useful and good idea, but an idea that has never been allowed to flourish because the Liquor Act, or any other act for that matter, has never demanded that government take a position as a matter of compulsion in relation to habitual drunks in our community.
This House has the power to demand from government that it, as a matter of law, takes an action to bring habitual drunks to court for assessment and consideration of an order. Section 122 of the Liquor Act currently creates prohibition orders against people who, by their habitual or excessive use of liquor, wastes his means, injures or is likely to injury their health, or upsets their own or another’s family. It allows a person to become a subject of an order if they are apprehended for protective custody in accordance with section 128 of the Police Administration Act three times in a six-month period.
Clearly, a person who is so seriously affected by alcohol three times in a six-month period that they need to be scraped up from the street, is a person who needs to be examined because they do pose a danger to themselves and, in every likelihood, others. Either that, or much less likely, they are astonishingly unlucky to be drunk and in the streets three times in that period. So why has it not worked? Why has this section of the Liquor Act failed to produce the results that it promises to produce? How many prohibition orders have been issued? One in the last four years, as I understand it - just one.
The failure does not lie with this government any more than it does its predecessor. The policy of using the Liquor Act has simply not been pursued. This bill, should it become law, will redress this. I invite the House to consider carefully what is proposed here as it changes the current operation of section 122 and offers a new direction dealing with what is widely acknowledged as our society’s most chronic problem. As a matter of CLP policy, my colleagues and I want to take positive steps to attend to this problem.
I will now turn my attention to the bill. The bill has written into a compulsion. This is designed to create, as a matter of statute, a register that must be administered and kept up to date. For the purposes of this bill, the Commissioner of Police is the person who must keep the register. The subjects of the register will be the identities of persons apprehended under section 128 of the Police Administration Act. This has the effect, to a large extent but not entirely, of eliminating the discretionary ability to bring an action that currently exists under section 122 of the act. No police officer may be compelled to apprehend a person. It is also a central tenet of our society that any person has the right to be at liberty rather than in custody. Only in certain circumstances may that liberty be removed. Drunkenness is one of those exceptions. Nevertheless, a police officer makes that assessment about every person they may choose to look at. Only occasionally is that assessment made that a person is so intoxicated that they need to be deprived of their liberty. This amendment makes no attempt to diminish, or in anyway affect, that discretionary power.
What this amendment does seek to do is remove the discretion of choosing to take an action to bring a person so apprehended three times in six months before a court. This means that, where a person is apprehend and taken to a sobering-up shelter, their home, a police station, or to another place, they will have their name entered into a central register that is to be maintained by the commissioner. This is the demand proposed by section 120A of the bill. The system by which the register is kept is an issue for the Commissioner for Police, and may be addressed by such orders that the commissioner may choose to issue in keeping such a register.
This then brings us to the proposed section 120B of the bill. When a person’s name is entered upon the register, and that individual is entered upon the register three times in a six-month period, then that person must be brought before a court to be assessed by that court for the purposes of making an order. Where a person is the subject of such a proceeding, then under section 120B(2) the person must be informed that they are to be subject of such an application. An investigation may be conducted to assist the court in its deliberation in terms of what is an appropriate action to take or order to make. Section 120B(3) then affords the court the latitude it needs to investigate the background to the application and any further information that it deems relevant.
Section 120C sets out some deliberately broad parameters for the court to conduct an investigation into the person who has been brought before it. Subsection (2) demands that the matter be heard out of the public domain to protect the person who is subject of the examination from ridicule or embarrassment. Finally, subsection (3) introduces the idea that, similar to an application under the Bail Act, a court may consider extraneous material for the purposes of making a determination. This extraneous material may include hearsay evidence. This has been deliberately included so that a just and proper outcome may be achieved. It is important to note that a person who is subject of such an examination has broken no law and is not on trial. The person is merely before the court in circumstances where their ability to effectively control themselves is at question.
The next section is also directed to the court and there is no way any attempt to diminish at all or affect the discretionary powers of the court. Section 120D(1)(a) relies on the use of the word ‘may’ to ensure that the discretion is protected. Also, the court must turn its attention to matters of physical violence towards themselves or others, or the peace, welfare or happiness of his or her family, or the family of another person, as well as the peace of the public at large. For the purpose of future interpretation this includes a person who is simply habitually drunk in public.
Subsection (2) effectively restores the terms of section 122 of the current Liquor Act. It does so as the bill has the effect of repealing that section. Those principles remain useful principles and deserve to be one the tools open to a court.
Subsection (3) of the proposed section may also apply certain conditions upon a person, and these include conditions that compel a person to undergo treatment, undergo assessment, reside in a particular place for a specified period, or ban them from certain places, and other options. The purpose of this section is to give the court the latitude it needs to make orders that are appropriate. This may include the ability to send a person to live in a particular community, or prevent a person from going to a particular community. The options are written in a general fashion so that the court may exercise the latitude it deems necessary to effect the intent of the legislation.
Subsections (4) and (5) require that where an order has been made in accordance with this section the Commissioner of Police is to advise the Liquor Commissioner that such an order has been made. The Liquor Commissioner will direct the director in accordance with the directions and manner specified by the Liquor Commissioner, to advise licensees in an area specified by the Liquor Commissioner of the making of the prohibition order and the person against whom it is made.
Section 120E then takes the legislation into an area where it has not been before, and that is to create an offence to fail to comply with the terms of the order. A person charged with such an offence is subject to all of the due processes and protections of the criminal justice system and it is not intended that any rights of an accused are diminished by this legislation. A person charged will be subject to all of the normal rules regarding bail, questioning and due process generally.
Subsection (2) deals with the sentencing of a person who commits the offence of failing to comply with an order. In the first instance of failing to comply, the penalty shall not exceed 14 days imprisonment. Upon a second conviction, the period of imprisonment should not exceed 30 days but will not be less than 14 days. Upon a third conviction, the period of imprisonment should not exceed three months but should not be less than 30 days and, upon every subsequent conviction, three months. Each order attracts a hierarchy of sentencing afresh so that any subsequent order that is made after the expiration of the former order does not attract the heavier sentences in the first instance.
Section 120F retains the responsibility on licensees to refrain from selling liquor to subjects of prohibition orders and allowing, without reasonable excuse, on to their premises.
Section 120G is designed to protect the rights of people who are being held in custody pending the making of an order. In normal circumstances, a person will be taken before the next available court for the purposes of determining an application. On any weekday in any major centre, that will be the next morning. Nevertheless, there are circumstances in which custody may be for a longer period of time. This will be especially true for weekends, public holidays and remote police stations. In such circumstances, the continued custody of a person without charge or conviction would not be consistent with due process. Therefore, it is proposed to allow a person who is the subject of custody or a police officer to seek that the person be released in accordance with the terms outlined in subsections (4)(a) and (4)(b).
Section 120G is also designed to give a court the option to release a person pending the making of an order by a court and will effectively give a court a modified power of bail, bearing in mind that no criminal allegation has been made. It is intended that the court will make an order in a timely manner. However, there will be circumstances where delays will be likely pending further investigation. Subsection (4) outlines the condition that may be applied. If a person who is at liberty breaches those conditions, the person maybe arrested and brought before the next available court. This may mean custody for several days or, in the case of remote locality, transfer of the person to a major centre.
This bill is not intended to do anything other than address a serious problem in our community. It places upon the shoulders of a person with a history of repeated or destructive drunkenness, a responsibility to be accountable for themselves and to others around them. This bill recognises that there is role for the Territory to play in the welfare of its citizens, but also asserts that where a person has a problem, they are answerable for their shortcomings to the community in which they live. The bill is a genuine attempt to bring a structure that compels people to be brought before a court when their miscreance is of such a nature that the community at large has a right to see them dealt with.
Before I sit down, I extend my thanks to Alderman Michael Jones of the Alice Springs Town Council, who came to me with this issue some time ago. Together we have worked on some of these issues and options. I also thank Parliamentary Counsel for their good and repeated editing of the bill and the fine work that they have done. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take two bills together
Take two bills together
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Criminal Code Amendment Bill (No 2) 2003 (Serial 165) and Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) 2003 (Serial 166):
(a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second readings; the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and
(b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 165)
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 166)
(Serial 165)
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 166)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time. By way of introduction, there are a number of preliminary matters that should be addressed before I go to the details of these.
Members will be aware that the member for Braitling brought before the House some time ago a bill which is apparently aimed at overcoming some of the difficulties posed by the Jackie Pascoe case. Although I support the well meaning intention of that bill, it does not, in my view, sufficiently advance the interests of Aboriginal women and girls who are the victims of violence, which is endemic in their communities, for reasons that I will outline later.
I can advise members that I have spoken to the member for Braitling about these bills and have her general support for so doing. The effect of this is that we now have three bills before this House which should, I hope, pressure government to use legislative initiatives as part of a whole package to assist in the elimination of violence against Aboriginal women and children and, importantly, to deal with the perpetrators of violence. I note that it has been 10 months since the Pascoe case furthered a Territory and, indeed, national debate about customary law and there are some practical legislative measures that could have been implemented or, at very least, circulated by government.
It is noteworthy that these bills come only two weeks after the National Summit convened by the Prime Minister to tackle indigenous family violence, so these bills are timely. I might say also that there is a demonstrated national commitment to addressing or tackling these issues, which is to be commended.
I should also note that the government last year commenced an inquiry into customary law. However, it is important for us all to realise that the inquiry deals with the broad application of customary law and is not, unlike these bills now before us, limited to dealing with the issue of violence in communities and how the criminal law can be improved to assist victims of violence. I am, I should say, nevertheless heartened by the indication from government that any recommendations of the inquiry must be consistent with universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms. In particular, the Criminal Code thereby precluding formal acceptance of any form of traditional law that uses violence or coercion. It is heartening, because the changes I suggest are consistent with fundamental human rights. In fact, the rights of victims of violence are very much enhanced by these amendments.
The bills are designed to overcome the obvious shortcomings of the criminal law, in relation to customary law, generally, and in particular how customary law assists violent men and penalises victims who are, for the most part, Aboriginal women and girls. I want to make it clear that these bills to not seek to abolish customary law. In fact, it was the CLP which introduced much legislation over the years which incorporated customary law into the Territory’s legal system. Such legislation includes the Evidence Act, the Community Welfare Act, the Adoption of Children Act, the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act, the Administration of Probate Act, and the Status of Children Act, to name a few.
These bills that I now introduce eliminate customary law from being considered in the criminal jurisdiction only, and are necessary, having regard to the outrageously high levels of violence being experienced in Aboriginal communities around the Territory. The central point of these bills is to ensure that Aboriginal women and girls are accorded the same rights and protections that are accorded to non-Aboriginal women and girls. With that central objective, it is hard to imagine that the bills would not be supported, if not in substance, then perhaps at least in principle.
No doubt, some will say that any legislation which in any way that limits customary law, even in the criminal jurisdiction, is a backward step, and an erosion of the rights of indigenous people. I cannot accept such an argument in light of the unacceptably high levels of violence experienced, not only in indigenous communities, but urban areas. The same people, no doubt, will ask whether these bills limit the rights of some indigenous people, and they probably do. However, those people whose rights may be limited will be the offenders who have committed acts of sexual and physical violence, predominantly on women and children, who come before the courts. I would suggest that most Territorians would have no problem with that whatsoever.
I am sure the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner will say that it is discriminatory. I note that he has already given advice to that effect to the member for Braitling in respect of her bill. I say to that: change the Anti-Discrimination Act so that it is no longer discriminatory. We simply cannot keep finding excuses for not dealing with the problem. If it is too hard, I say, try harder, and find ways of overcoming the obstacles.
There is a bottom line here, and that is that there is nothing culturally appropriate about physical and sexual violence. There is a time to draw a line in the sand, and to be uncompromising, some would say militant, about violence, and I am one of them. Indeed, I can argue with some confidence that this now underpins the national agenda on this issue.
I trust that I will obtain the full support of all members for what may be described as some fairly radical bills, but which can equally and rightly be regarded as creating practical ways to improve the criminal law in an attempt to assist victims of male violence. There are two bills, the Sentencing Act amendment and the amendment to the Criminal Code. The Sentencing Act amendment I will now turn to in some detail.
I should say, however, that the member for Braitling’s bill that was introduced some time ago, only deals with sentencing, and only applies to sexual crimes against Aboriginal women and children. Obviously, there are other crimes of violence that women in communities face, particularly physical violence. The member for Braitling’s bill does not deal with those other crimes of violence, which is why I propose that the Sentencing Act be amended to include a new section, section 5A, which says:
- That the court shall not have regard to any aspect of Aboriginal customary law in sentencing.
Indeed, a system exists whereby Aboriginal women and children, who are the victims of violence, become victimised, even more by the legal system, and certainly marginalised, and not truly assisted by it. And let there be no mistake, Aboriginal customary law, in criminal law proceedings, does not assist them, rather it disadvantages them.
Submissions are often put about customary law with little or no evidence. Magistrates and judges have developed an overly respectful regard for submissions that contain references to so-called traditional law. Some would say that one example of this can be found in the remarks of Justice Gallop in the Pascoe case. However, there are plenty more like that. The fact is that violent offenders, through their lawyers, are putting to judges and magistrates submissions not too far removed from: ‘It was culturally appropriate for me to bash my wife’, ‘It was culturally appropriate for me to have sexual intercourse with a girl under 16’, and ‘It was culturally appropriate for me to bash and rape that woman’.
There is nothing culturally appropriate about crimes of violence and it behoves us all to do what we can to stop it. If we cannot actually stop the violence, we can at least do our best to prevent men hiding behind the veil of customary law. Offenders who invoke customary law do so for their own benefit. Indeed, a feminist analysis would be that it works to assist men and disadvantage women. That certainly appears to be the case when you look at the high level of violence on communities, and those who are the perpetrators and those who are the victims. Customary law is used as a shield to further mitigate the sentencing disposition which follows a finding of guilt or a plea of guilty.
Furthermore, the concept of payback is often relied upon as a mitigating factor by defence lawyers and is taken into account by judges and magistrates when sentencing. There is another bill before the House about payback in bail cases. This amendment is not about payback per se, but it is important for members to understand that submissions about an offender having received payback will no longer be able to put as a result of this amendment. This is worth noting because the fact is that, regularly, courts do take into account evidence or, in some cases, merely submissions from the bar table, that the offender has been punished in accordance with traditional or customary law and that, as a consequence, the punishment handed out by the court should be reduced. In other words, if the offender has been punished Aboriginal way, then it attracts some sort of reduction to the sentence that is to be imposed by the court.
If we accept, as I am sure we do, that violence is endemic in Aboriginal communities, then it is appropriate that other forms of violence, under the name or guise of payback, should not be tolerated or in any way sanctioned by the courts. While a broader debate on payback will no doubt occur when the bill I have just alluded to is here before us, it is germane to this bill because of the way it advantages perpetrators of violence. There can be no doubt that there is something of a revolving door that exists for many violent offenders which, crudely put, goes something like this: man beats up woman; man goes to court; lawyer says he has already been punished Aboriginal way; judge says that is taken into account and the sentence is reduced; man goes back to community sooner than he should, back to beat up the woman again. It is simplistic but frankly, in many cases, it is not too far off representing what happens.
Customary law, a part of which is payback, often shields an offender from stronger sentences. It is an unfair and unconscionable mechanism by which their criminality is reduced or excused, resulting in reduced sentences or, in some cases, no periods of imprisonment at all.
In light of the high levels of sexual and physical violence that exists, we must all ask whether we are prepared to sit back and accept this situation. For my part, I am not, and to the extent that I can do anything, I introduce these bills.
No doubt the question will be asked: what will this bill achieve; that is, the Sentencing Act amendment. First, it is worth noting that many argue that women and children will be protected if customary law is excluded from the courts’ deliberations because, if it is not taken into account, violent men are more likely to be gaoled for longer periods. In turn, in a practical sense, it means that their victims have a longer period of respite, or it may give them time to leave their communities or otherwise get away from the offenders, something which is notoriously difficult to do. Second, it will send a message to violent men that they can no longer hide behind the veil of customary law. Third, it will send a message to Aboriginal victims of violence that those who offend against them will be treated the same way as those who offend against non-indigenous victims. Fourth, it will affirm the Territory’s commitment to honestly addressing Aboriginal violence which will be a welcome contribution to the national agenda.
We must do what we can to ensure that offenders are not afforded an unfair and unconscionable mechanism by which their criminality is reduced or excused. The removal of customary law from the courts’ deliberations is something constructive that we, as legislators, can do. The solution I propose is that a new section 5(2A) should be incorporated into the Sentencing Act that says the court shall not have regard to customary law in sentencing an offender. I commend that to members.
In relation to the Criminal Code amendment, this amendment is necessary because the Sentencing Act only relates to offenders who are found guilty or who plead guilty. Put simply, or in layman’s terms, it comes into play at the final stage of a criminal proceeding. It is important therefore to look at what can be done in the course of the determination of guilt. To this end, I am able to demonstrate how it is that customary law sanctions acts of sexual intercourse or gross indecency on girls under the age of 16.
Members will recall that in the Pascoe Case, for instance, which I notice is on appeal to the High Court, the offender was found guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under 16 years of age contrary to section 129(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. That section refers to unlawful sexual intercourse and acts of gross indecency with a female who is under the age of 16 years. For the purpose of this debate I will use the Pascoe Case as an example but there are plenty more cases around just like it.
The difficulty I want to overcome by this bill is best illustrated by a remark made by Mr Justice Riley in the Court of Appeal at pages 42 and 43 of the judgment. He says, and I quote
A purpose of the provision …
That is section 129:
- … is to protect young females from sexual exploitation. A female below the age of 16 years is to be treated
as being unable to consent to sexual intercourse. However, for sexual intercourse with a female under that
age to be unlawful the parties to the act must not be husband and wife.
For the sake of completeness I should mention that Pascoe did not actually assert that the girl was his wife, merely his promised wife, but for the purposes of this debate, Mr Justice Riley’s remarks succinctly outline the nature of the problem. Put simply what it means is that it is not unlawful if the man and a female under 16 years of age are married Aboriginal way. In other words, if they are married it is not unlawful for a man to have sexual intercourse with, or commit an act of gross indecency upon, a girl under 16 and only Aboriginal Territorians can marry under the age of 16 years.
I turn now to the definitions section of Division 1 of the Criminal Code and it says and I quote:
‘husband’ and ‘wife’ and like terms include, in the case of Aborigines, persons living in a husband
and wife relationship according to tribal custom;
The effect of the definition, when combined with the definition of ‘unlawful’ set out in section 126 of the Code is that traditional marriage makes certain actions lawful. Hence, customary law provides a defence to Aboriginal men having sex with girls under the age of 16 years on the basis that they are husband and wife. Or put another way, if the girl under 16 years is the man’s wife then a man cannot, I repeat, cannot be found guilty of an offence under section 129, that is, sexual intercourse or an act of gross indecency.
This assumes that girls under the age of 16 can give their consent to fundamental matters. One is sexual intercourse and the second is marriage. I do not believe that that is acceptable. The amendment I propose to remove this problem is a rewrite of the definition of husband and wife and it is as follows:
‘husband’ and ‘wife’ and like terms include persons living in a husband and wife relationship, except
if the wife has not attained the age of 16 years.
That removes reliance on things like tribal custom in support of Aboriginal marriages. It also protects exploitation of girls under 16 and, I might add, not just Aboriginal girls, all girls. It is therefore, I suggest, a necessary and compelling amendment.
While I have referred to section 129 of the Criminal Code it is important to note that the proposed amendment will mean that in the following sections any sexual act against a 16 year old will be unlawful and the person may be charged with the following crimes without the defence of traditional marriage being available: section 131 – Attempts at procuration of young persons or mentally ill or handicapped persons; section 131A – Unlawful sexual relationship with child; section 132 – Indecent dealing with child under 16 years; and section 130 –Sexual intercourse or gross indecency by provider of services to mentally ill or handicapped person.
As I said, this is a compelling amendment. I suggest that there would not be one person in this Chamber who would have any difficulty whatsoever with the proposition that it should be unlawful for anyone to have sex with a child under the age of 16 years. I should say, for the sake of being additionally thorough, and for the benefit of those at the Department of Justice who will need to advise the Attorney-General on this bill, that I did consider the consequences of the bill on sections 13, 42 and 291. However, any consequences that do flow are not significant and certainly not insurmountable and, most importantly, those sections do not deal with crimes of violence.
Children cannot consent to sexual intercourse yet, under customary law, their consent is taken to have been given by virtue of marriage. In many communities across the Territory, girls are promised to men and they are married to them, Aboriginal way. When men have sex with them or commit acts of gross indecency upon them, a ready-made defence is available to them. This is unacceptable and, I would suggest, profoundly racist because similar provisions do not exist for non-Aboriginal girls.
I suggest that we as a community do actually accept a number of fundamental propositions, and they are: that there is no sliding scale with child abuse; children cannot give their consent to sexual intercourse or acts of gross indecency; that physical and sexual violence against Aboriginal women and children is endemic; and that all children, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, must be protected against acts of physical and sexual violence; and that children cannot give their consent to be married.
In conclusion, the two amendments I propose are, on any analysis, compelling. In summary, the first is to the Sentencing Act, which precludes courts taking customary law into account when sentencing. It covers all crimes of violence, not just sexual offences, and it will overcome the practical and intellectual difficulties that arise from punishing those who commit crimes of violence with other violence. By that, I am referring to payback.
It will prevent courts offsetting punishment for crimes of violence, which are predominantly against women and children, with punishment inflicted on the offender by others. Most importantly, it will afford Aboriginal women and children the same rights and protections afforded to non-Aboriginal women and children.
The second amendment proposed, namely, the amendment to the Criminal Code, will ensure that offenders who have sexual intercourse with, or who commit acts of gross indecency upon, Aboriginal girls under the age of 16 years cannot rely upon the veil of marriage as a defence, which is currently afforded to them. This will mean, therefore, that Aboriginal girls will have the same protection as non-Aboriginal girls under our legal system.
Finally, it seems to me that both political parties in the Territory say to each other on the issue of Aboriginal violence against women and children, and, indeed, all Aboriginal violence, that neither party has done or is doing enough. I suppose that is the nature of politics. However, like everyone who lives in the Northern Territory, both parties are desperate to see the reduction of violence. Both parties have and will continue to expend huge amounts of money and other resources trying to address this problem. While money and programs and other resources are directed at this, we should not shy away from legislative change as part of an overall package. Practical measures, such as legislative change, can and should be undertaken to assist victims of violence. It is for that reason that the amendments and my comments do transcend politics.
This is about doing what is right, proper and necessary to protect Aboriginal victims of violence, predominantly women and children. Accordingly, I trust that these amendments will have the support of government and that they are accepted in the spirit in which they are intended, or at least seriously considered. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
JURIES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 74)
(Serial 74)
Continued from 9 October 2002.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I say at the outset that the government will not be supporting this bill. Having said that, we have said several times earlier that we understand the issue that was raised by the member for Araluen, and we have certainly worked with the Chief Justice to provide that the problems that you identified will not occur within our court system in the future. The difference between the course of action that was brought forward by the member and what we have agreed to put into the courts in conjunction with the Chief Justice is that one works through court rules, the other works through a potential legislative change.
The assessment that we received from both my department and from the Chief Justice is that, while the bill, I guess, has the effect of identifying a problem by seeking to prevent a potential juror from having to disclose in open court personal reasons for wishing to be excused from jury service, it also seeks to avoid the dismissal of a panel where prejudicial matter is averted to in seeking excuse from jury service. The advice from the Chief Justice and the department is that the bill does not provide a practical set means of achieving those objectives. It simply states that the juror should have the opportunity to exclude themselves from a case without having to give the reasons in front of often a very large number of people who have been empanelled for jury service.
As the member for Araluen should be aware, once the trial has commenced, the procedure for excuses must be made under the supervision of the trial judge in open court so that justice is administered openly and efficiently. That, as she would well know from being a practising lawyer, is a very important aspect of court hearings. It is very important that the accused can see for themselves that all of the processes of a hearing, of a trial, are being carried out correctly and transparently. The Chief Justice had advised that he considered the issue and the jury procedure as matters more appropriately dealt with by administrative procedures including, where necessary, practice directions by judges rather than by legislation. Any changes to procedures should be practical and manageable to the courts. It is for that purpose that much of the effort that has been put into responding to this issue has been directed.
He has also advised that the circumstances of a particular case that led to the member for Araluen bringing forth this bill are very rare in the Supreme Court system. In the corporate memory of members of the Supreme Court, there has only been one previous occasion, and none since the incident that was referred to by the member. That does not mean, as I have said, that it is not a valid issue. Hence, we have adopted some responses to prevent this happening again.
To summarise, when a trial is being drawn together, and a jury is being arraigned to take part in the trial, there are a number of opportunities for a potential juror to indicate that they want to be excused from jury service on that particular trial or, indeed, in that particular time frame. First of all, the person can apply in writing to be excused any time after they receive the summons for jury service. The application will be considered by the Sheriff, the Registrar, or the Master. Applications are usually based on grounds such as competing interests, illness or arranged holidays. On the morning of the day of the trial, a person may make an application in writing prior to the proceedings commencing. The Registrar then considers these applications. It is my advice that, at that stage, the nature of the trial, in other words, the class of charges that are going to be heard, whether they be a sexual offence, or an offence of violence, or some other area of offending, will be made known to the prospective jurors. It is felt that, at that stage, with some additional support provided to the potential jurors, that there is a good opportunity for a juror to present the reasons in writing why they would feel unable or discomforted by serving as a jury member on the particular case that is commentated.
Finally - and this is the situation that the member’s bill actually seems to address - is the applications to be excused from a particular trial can be taken by a judge, by sworn evidence, after the panel has been brought into the court and has heard the charges read and the plea taken, and the witness list disclosed. I can understand why, for the reasons that were given as the basis of the bill brought forward, that would be quite difficult, for example, for a woman who had been sexually assaulted having to explain in an open court the situation in front of, quite often, a large number of potential jurors, that that is the reason why she did not feel that she wanted to serve on the jury.
Because of the competing interests of personal privacy for the potential juror, and the open justice for the accused, changes to the jury process have to be very carefully weighed up. All options to the current procedure have been explored, taking into account the different amenities available in Darwin and Alice Springs courthouses, and the effect upon the jury panel, as a whole. The Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court have done much work on this issue since the adjournment of the debate. Material has been gathered from other jurisdictions for consideration, and proposals have been prepared.
The Chief Justice proposes a process whereby jury members are advised carefully of the process by which they might be excused, either before the trial has commenced, or once the trial has commenced. The jurors will be instructed that, once they have been told the nature of the case that they will hear, they can approach the Registrar before the trial is commenced and the Registrar will hear the application for excuse. Once the trial is commenced, a further opportunity will be made available. The juror may approach the Deputy Sheriff to have their application for excuse heard by the judge, in the absence of the panel. The judge will hear the application in the presence of the accused, the counsel and the court officers. However, other members of the panel will not be present to hear the application.
This proposal will deal satisfactorily with those cases where jurors feel that the circumstances of the application to be excused are too sensitive or embarrassing to be heard by all panel members. I take the scenario on board that was put forward; that is, that potential jury members and their fellow panel members on a particular day, all live in often a very small place like Alice Springs, and they pass each other in the street every day. They may well work together or see each other at other activities around our community. Therefore, it is quite obvious that it would be advisable not to have that kind of information exposed under those circumstances. The Chief Justice has indicated that that eventuality can be avoided without compromising the need for openness of the court process once the trial has begun.
To reiterate, there is a very clear opportunity prior to the court proceedings occurring, involving the Registrar, and then another opportunity even once the trial has commenced where, in the absence of the rest of the panel members, a potential juror can give their excuse for not serving to the judge.
Just to fill in some more of the information of what has been done to date:
a draft of a script for a video presentation to potential jury members at the commencement of the
criminal sittings, which deals with the general procedure for selection of a jury for a particular trial,
and contains special measures directed to people who may seek to be excused because they know the
accused, or for whatever reason – they maybe personally embarrassed - has been prepared, and will be
now used to prepare an informational video that will be shown to all potential jury members;
an amendment to the material which goes to the members of the public who are summoned to attend as
jurors so that they will also be able to better understand the grounds on which they might apply for an
exemption or excuse is in preparation; and
the proposed upgrades to the jury sections of the Supreme Court web site are also being in place.
I believe that potential jurors will go into this process well aware of the procedures by which they can seek an exemption.
There are two occasions now where an exemption can be sought without having to disclose the reasons to the general panel of prospective jurors. We believe that through these very practical arrangements we can preserve the transparency of the court process whilst respecting that there are areas of potential jurors’ lives that they want to maintain privacy around.
In closing, I thank the member for Araluen for drawing our attention to this problem. The solution posed by the member, unfortunately, was not seen as practical and it also had the potential to impact on the fairness of a criminal trial. I hope she will recognise that we have worked towards a situation which, though rare, will now make these occurrences unlikely to occur at all. In doing so, we have preserved both the integrity of the court system and the openness and transparency of the trial process.
Madam Speaker, in summary, we oppose the bill.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I formally place on the record my support for the Juries Amendment Bill (Serial 74), which was introduced by my colleague and learned friend, the member for Araluen, earlier this year.
I am of the view that it is good law to enshrine into statute, a right which may be exercised by a potential juror to disclose to a closed court the reason why that person is of the view that they should be excused. Darwin really is a small town. I was fortunate enough to be a judge’s associate to the former Justice Nader at the Supreme Court. I recall seeing many situations where a juror would come in to be called and during the course of explaining why they did not want to be part of this particular jury, would feel embarrassed. There are an enormous number of people, between 60 and 100, who sit there and despite some discretionary safeguards which the Attorney-General says exist, certainly at that time people were nervous and it was embarrassing. In a small town, invariably, you will know people who are in the body of the courtroom.
This amendment is legislation which empowers Territorians. It does not erode the rights of Territorians but it enhances their rights. I cannot imagine for a moment why any clear-thinking government would not support this initiative. Of course, this government is contaminated with the political view that it cannot support anything from the opposition. This seems to be the approach taken and when it comes to dealing with this important piece of legislation, this is not an issue. It is not an amendment which we should play party politics with; it is too important for that. It is for those reasons that I am asking the honourable members to support the amendment.
I support my colleague, the member for Araluen, and her sponsorship of this particular piece of legislation.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the reasons for introducing this bill were outlined in the second reading speech and there is no need, obviously, to go through them. I note that the Attorney-General touched upon those reasons as well. It was intended, and still is intended, as a sensible mechanism by which a potential juror can give reasons as to why it is that he or she want to be excused, and that a statutory right be provided for them to do so. It, obviously, takes into account situations such as rape victims being on juries in rape trials and it may well be rare, however, it is a problem and it should properly be remedied. I still propose that a statutory right of privacy be enacted. As I say, there are very obvious and quite sensitive reasons why, in some instances, that should occur.
The bill is straightforward, and it was meant to be straightforward because bad legislation always has too much in it. It is intended as an easy solution; it is not rocket science; it is not political. Yet after 14 months, the government simply has not acted other than having conversations with the Chief Justice, and I will come back to that.
I might say that I did have some faith fairly early on that the Attorney-General might support this bill because he seemed fairly receptive when I first introduced it. I gave the Attorney-General the benefit of the doubt and gave him plenty of time to indicate whether he might consent to the passing of this bill. In fact, I even thought that if he could not quite bring himself to support my bill, he might be brave enough to come into the Chamber with his own but, after 14 months, that is not the case. There is a time at which you think it is important to press on, regardless.
The Attorney-General said that the bill is not practical. I say make it practical. Come up with an idea. Legislate for that statutory right of privacy. I might say that there was nothing contained in what the Attorney-General said in his reply that I found persuasive enough for me to concede defeat on this bill.
In terms of the Chief Justice, it is the case that I have had a couple of letters from the Attorney-General advising that the Chief Justice was, according to one letter, sympathetic to the issue and, in another letter, supportive of change. While I am grateful for the Chief Justice’s support and his efforts, it is astonishing that when presented with a problem and details as to how to fix it, government tries to do everything it can to obstruct and delay and do whatever it can to avoid making a decision.
It was, as I say, a simple legislative change, but, for reasons that I still do not understand, it was too hard for them. It is like so much that we see from this government. They will move heaven and earth to avoid making a decision. They are the government; they are the ones in charge of legislation, and they have the right – indeed, the honour – to enact legislation in this parliament. They refuse to do so. Fourteen months ago I introduced this bill. After 14 months, this problem has not been rectified. That is disgraceful.
I might say that, having reviewed the history of this matter, and since I introduced this bill, there is an aroma of skulduggery as to the government’s position on this. I will outline it for the benefit of members. In the NT News, there was an editorial on 24 June 2002, only a couple of days after this bill was introduced. I will quote a part of that editorial, which says, inter alia, that changes to the act were:
- … rejected on numbers in the Assembly, even though to many observers it seemed a reasonable amendment.
Labor said it rejected the idea because Ms Carney had written to the CLP, her own party, suggesting the reform
and it was rejected.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! What is fascinating about all of this is that the government obviously leaked a yarn to the NT News, but it was the wrong yarn; it was a ripping yarn. It was wrong because, first, the bill was not introduced, so God only knows how it could have been rejected on the numbers, and even the thickest political advisor would have been able to get their head around that. Second, the most interesting part of the yarn fed to the NT News was that it was not the case at all that the CLP had ever rejected this proposal.
The government backed itself into a corner. Only days after introducing this bill, it was wedded to a position of oppose, oppose, oppose at whatever cost. It was prepared to manufacture absolute rubbish in support of its decision to oppose at any cost. Now, it is the case that in 2001, I wrote to the Acting Attorney-General in relation to a jury problem, but it was about a murder case and it had nothing to do with this bill.
This bill gives people the right to elect not to give reasons in open court. That proposition was never put to the CLP by me, and it was certainly never rejected by the CLP. Therefore, the peddlers of this diatribe in the Northern Territory News should be ashamed of themselves. It shows that the government has been caught out. Only days after introducing this bill, you lot fed this garbage to the media that says the CLP rejected it. Absolute rubbish! To many it seemed like a reasonable amendment. It was then and it is now. And your foolish legal advisors, or I do not know, perhaps it was the Attorney-General himself, said that the idea was rejected on the numbers. Well, no doubt tonight that may well happen. I am sure it will.
Over a year ago, you peddled this garbage to the Northern Territory News. You have been absolutely sprung. So, when the Attorney-General stands up and gives his diatribe about 1001 reasons as to why the government will not accept this bill, it boils down to one thing: it is an absolute and steadfast determination by the Australian Labor Party NT Branch to oppose any idea brought up by the CLP. There is a lesson in all of this to the government. If you are going to try to justify why it is that you will not agree to sensible bills like this one, then at least feed the media a decent yarn. Do not just make it up, because you will be caught out, and you have been caught out. You tried to suggest that maybe it would not be supported because the CLP would not support it. It is just not true. Anyone will, of course, be led to the conclusion that the real reason for all of this is that the government is too arrogant and too proud to support a bill introduced by the CLP. You are a gutless pack.
In summary, no good reason has been given by the Attorney-General as to any opposition in relation to this bill. It appears as though government has not understood this bill at all, even though they have had 14 months to get across it. The government invented an absolute fantasy to give to the NT News, which was completely baseless, in an attempt to use that as some sort of lame excuse as to why it would oppose this bill. This government is just so arrogant that it cannot bring itself to acknowledge a sensible suggestion and accept it. Yet, the irony is it is happy to nick ideas from every other Labor state. It is happy to cut and paste legislation from every other Labor state and, Attorney-General, all of the lawyers in town are talking about it; indeed half of your department continue to giggle about it. The Department of Justice just cuts and pastes, using all of its computers, with all of the legislation in Australia. You are happy to pinch everything else, but when we come up with a good idea, you just cannot bring yourselves to concede that it is a good idea.
Well, you are going down a very dangerous road, and it says a lot about you, Mr Attorney-General. It tells a very interesting tale, that you are prepared to peddle absolute nonsense and expect me to not pick it up, to expect not to be called to account when you peddle this sort of rubbish. It is astonishing and it is disgraceful.
I will conclude. However, I will make a point of telling all and sundry the funny reasons that the Attorney-General has for opposing this bill. Other people like me are not stupid. It is really quite funny that the government has been caught out on something as, in the light of all of the legislation - I think there have been about 140-odd bits of legislation that have come before us since October 2001 - in the overall scheme of things, the Juries Bill would be considered by some as a fairly innocuous piece of legislation. It is hardly earth shattering stuff. Yet, for something like this, for you gutless pack over there to invent stories as to why it is you will not support us, is just astonishing. You should all be very ashamed.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 10 Noes 13
- Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Mr Dunham Dr Burns
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Dr Lim Mr Kiely
Mr Maley Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McAdam
Mr Reed Ms Martin
Mr Wood Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 124)
(Serial 124)
Continued from 26 February 2003.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that consideration of the bill be postponed to a later hour.
By way of explanation, I did have a briefing from the government regarding the Traffic Amendment Bill. The government has said it is willing to introduce an amendment itself which will cover at least 90% of what is in the bill that I have intended to put into parliament and I accept that. I appreciate the government taking on board the intentions of this bill. Certainly, in my second reading speech, I did mention that there were some issues such as sound coming from vehicles that I believe needed some amendments to my bill. If the government would take that on I would be interested to see what they have.
The government has also said it would introduce it in October, so I am looking forward to seeing it in October. I do not have any great problems with the bill not being in my name. The bill is important, there is a need for it. As I said, if the government is willing to introduce the same bill to parliament in October, I am quite happy to postpone my comments to a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 126)
(Serial 126)
Continued from 26 February 2003.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling)(by leave): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that consideration of the bill be postponed to a later hour.
I would like to defer the debate on this bill, which is aimed at ensuring Aboriginal girls get the same protection under the law as other Australian girls until after a possible High Court hearing. My amendment does not aim to outlaw promised marriages, just to ensure that they are not consummated until the girl is old enough and mature enough to enter into the relationship. Before the age of 16 she should be given the full protection of the Australian law.
I have received a huge amount of support for this particular amendment, certainly from some of the Northern Territory’s strongest voices on Aboriginal social policy issues. For instance, the ATSIC Board Social and Physical Wellbeing Committee has given support to this amendment and stated that in a conflict between lore and law the interests of the child must come first. The NYP Women’s Council stated that:
- The court should not have any regard to Aboriginal customary law where the victim is under 16 years of age.
As I said in my second reading speech, I realise the bill raises contentious issues regarding the place of Aboriginal culture and law in a very fast changing, wider environment. My aim is to protect young Aboriginal girls from exploitation and perhaps there may be other ways of doing this, other than my particular amendment.
The Department of Public Prosecutions appealed against the original Pascoe Case and the Northern Territory’s Full Court of Appeal imposed a 12-month sentence, with a one month non-parole period. In my view, this sentence is more in line with community expectations and with recognising the rights of the Aboriginal girl. However, lawyers now want to appeal that sentence to the High Court. ATSIC has refused to fund the appeal because such a move clashes with its policy of support of the rights of Aboriginal women and girls. I am told that lawyers in Darwin have volunteered to do the appeal without charge, so that an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court will possibly go ahead in October. Because the grounds of the appeal raise important questions and, in fact, represent a test case of Aboriginal customary law and how it interacts with the wider Australian criminal law, I have decided a debate on this bill should be deferred to see if the High Court does hear the appeal.
The member for Araluen says that my bill does not go far enough, but the intent and spirit of this bill is very clear in my mind. That is to give Aboriginal girls the same protection as other Australian girls. I ask the government to support this postponement of the bill.
Motion agreed to.
CONTAINER DEPOSIT BILL
(Serial 131)
(Serial 131)
Continued from 26 February 2003.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling)(by leave): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that consideration of the bill be postponed to a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
BUSHFIRES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 129)
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 130)
(Serial 129)
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 130)
Continued from 26 February 2003.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have to say that I am nothing short of astonished. We have a bill before this House to which I would expect the responsible minister to respond. I see that the minister is present, and has not bothered to rise. I find this an extraordinary situation. I paused for a long time, and even offered the call to the minister, yet the minister has not risen.
Mr Henderson: He will.
Mr ELFERINK: If he wants to climb to his feet and respond to this – he adjourned it. It is up to him to respond.
It is a principle of this Chamber that argument goes back and forth, and this lazy minister who is not prepared has yet again demonstrated that he is unable to do his job effectively. It was a pretty straightforward exercise. I invited the minister to take the call above me, and he sat there and just looked. It is about time he learned how to do his job properly.
While we are on the subject of doing the job properly, it is about time we looked at another aspect of this. The member for Araluen has brought a bill to this House which seeks to change the penalty from $1000 or six months in gaol to $20 000 and five years in gaol. What do we find from the minister the other day? A media release or comments in the media about how he wanted to suddenly, miraculously, change the penalties to $25 000 and five years in gaol, which is almost an exactly ...
Mr Wood: I will see your 25 and I will raise you five.
Mr ELFERINK: Exactly. It is a case of I bid, you raise, I bid, you raise. What has actually happened here is that the minister has thought to himself: ‘Oh, General Business Day. I do not have to pay any attention to that. I do not have to care about what is going on’. The fact is that he has completely missed the point of a General Business Day. We bring legislation into this Chamber to be debated out so that the government can respond – positively, by accepting legislative changes – or not respond.
This government, through political cuteness, has already decided it is not going to allow any of the opposition’s bills any oxygen as a matter of policy. If that is their approach, so be it. That then paints the minister into an awkward little corner because, if he is too lazy or too dim to notice what is going on around him, and that there has been a bill sitting on the Table for months and months, then all of a sudden, two days out from a General Business Day, he realises there is a bill he has to respond to, and the political difficulty he would have by knocking back a very sensible, logical approach to a serious issue in our community. What is he going to do? He cannot support the bill. He cannot reject the bill on the grounds that it goes to far. What is his response? ‘I will raise you $5000, otherwise we will accept the terms of the bill but we will introduce our own bill and we will be half-smart’.
The minister has been caught out in this process in the same way that he was caught out this morning dishing out a letter in relation to a response to a motion by the member for Nelson. Once again, he suddenly realised at the very last moment it was his job to do something, and what was his response? ‘Oh, fire a letter off to the Deputy Prime Minister and we will just sign it today and hope nobody notices the date on the bottom of the letter’. It is a particularly poor minister who approaches the business of governance of the Northern Territory and the business of this House in such a slap-hazard and weak fashion.
The fact is, as I pointed out, this minister is starting to look accident prone. The reason he starts to look accident prone is that he is not paying attention to what is going on around him. It is his job to drive the boat of his department, it is his job to be the captain of his area of government. Unfortunately, the captain is too busy, wining and dining in the dining room of his wonderful passenger vessel, when he should be on the bridge looking out for the icebergs. It will not be long before he flounders and drives his vessel straight into one of those icebergs, and everybody, the taxpayers of the Northern Territory, as well as the crew of his department, will go down with his ship. This is something that he has to start to realise: he has to lift his game. And by not climbing to his feet today, he demonstrates again that he is not keeping up with even the most simple aspects of his job.
Dr Burns: He does not have to get to his feet when you want him to get to his feet. Learn your place!
Mr ELFERINK: Not even the most simple aspects of his job. I am here to talk about a serious bill and I am here to talk about serious issues.
Mr Dunham: Learn your place. Now, there is arrogance. Learn your place, boy, learn your place.
Dr Burns: Absolutely!
Mr Dunham: You patronising bastard!
Mr ELFERINK: I am here to talk about a serious issue and my place …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask that the member for Drysdale withdraw the swear word he just used at one of our members, clearly audible from this side of the House.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear that, whatever it was that was said.
Mr Dunham: He did not hear it.
Dr Burns: ‘Patronising bastard’ are the words he used.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind members that there has to be a degree of decorum in this House. I put members on notice that if, indeed, a repeat of what was alleged occurs, then you will be out. Member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I will continue my remarks in relation to this very important bill.
It was not that long ago that I saw some very serious fires around Central Australia. I am talking about millions of hectares of country being lost to fire. I want to take some time to talk about the nature of fire in Central Australia and how it affects especially the cattle industry. The problem is that you can lose stock through fire, and that is a real risk, but often those fires do not move so quickly, because they are grass fires, at the end of the day, and unless they are being blown along at a great speed, generally the stock are able to get out of the way of an approaching fire.
However, there is another consequence which is not really considered and that is the nature of those grasses in Central Australia, including the introduced species of grass, such as buffel grass, regenerate only when they get rained on, which means that, in the instance that we have at the moment, all those months ago when we had that fire, not that much rain has fallen in Central Australia and there are still large tracts of what should be good pastoral country totally unproductive for the people who live there, having a direct effect on the economic wellbeing of the people of the Northern Territory. These fires are often lit deliberately, for any number of reasons, and I am deeply concerned that we are not doing enough to protect the industry and protect the economy of the Northern Territory.
The member for Araluen has suggested, quite rightly, that penalties should reflect the seriousness of the offence. The member for Araluen has put up the amount of $20 000, or five years in gaol. It serves us well, and behoves us well, to consider the penalty for the crime of arson, which appears in the Criminal Code. Arson cannot be committed upon land, but it can be committed upon a building, and if arson occurs on a building, the penalty for an arson attack is life imprisonment. That is how seriously this Chamber takes the offence of arson. So when the member for Araluen comes into the Chamber and suggests $20 000 or five years in gaol, it is quite a light penalty but, of course, it is a vastly superior penalty to the one that currently exists.
I have to declare a certain amount of interest in this now, because I have recently bought a rural block in the Ilparpa area and surrounding me is large quantities of buffel grass. I am all too aware of the damage that fires can do, having seen property losses caused by grass fires in many places. Deliberately lit fires are simply not on; they are a criminal act, as far as I am concerned. Consequently, I wholly and solely support the member for Araluen in her endeavours to bring reasonable penalties to bear on these dreadful offences.
I urge the minister to stop approaching these issues in a glib, slick, second-hand car dealer-type fashion in terms of the general clich that is applied to that profession, and start getting serious about the job that he does. It is all well and good to have the good bits of the job and the flash white cars but, frankly, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this minister is now becoming so accident prone he does not need a white car, he needs a dodgem car. I wholly support the member for Araluen in her endeavours.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I always enjoy the graphic description of events by the member for Macdonnell – graphic and pompous, I should say. I heard what he had to say. The reason I did not jump to my feet is that I was really interested to hear what he would say. Let me tell you something else: I do not have a problem with the bill introduced by the member for Araluen. As a matter of fact, I like it. However, I do not think it goes far enough. I will tell you why it does not go far enough.
The member for Araluen has introduced a bill to increase penalties and, some months ago, I said I believe that the penalties should be increased, and should be increased significantly. The member for Araluen suggested that the penalty be increased to $20 000 - I said $25 000. The difference is very small, only $5000. As a matter of fact, I rang the member this morning and said: ‘I am prepared to work with you, because you put an amendment in the Bushfires Act. But I am proposing to put more than one amendment, because increasing the fine only is not going to achieve what we want to do’. What we want to do is to stop the destruction of the land, property and livestock, and penalise and punish the people who cause it.
What my proposal is - and it is a simple proposal because, not only do we increase the fine and the maximum penalties with regards to monetary value and imprisonment, but we are also looking at the same situation in the urban environment. It is very good look after the bush – I have no problem with that – but the same thing happens in Litchfield, and can happen in Darwin. Therefore, instead of looking at one item in isolation, let us have a look at the whole of the Territory, urban and rural.
In addition to that, I suggested – and it is clearly stated in the recent media release – that not only will we punish people for lighting the fire, but we will have the ability to recover the cost for fighting that particular fire. So a person who causes destruction will be punished, and punished severely. Not only that, but in addition to that we decided to make it easier for people - for our rangers and our firefighters - to enter properties to investigate things before fire happens, to investigate compliance with the regulations. If people are not going to comply with that, instead of taking them to court and waiting for three to five months, we will issue infringement notices. Our amendments are going to be a whole package, not amending three sections increasing the fines.
I have no problem with the member for Araluen’s suggestion. I have told her that I will support her. The $5000 difference is not significant, but what I will not support - and I asked if we can work together and she said: ‘No, I want to go by myself’. Fine. I will oppose that because I will actually suggest …
Mr Elferink: Fire season is just around the corner. This is fiddling when Rome is going to burn, you know that.
Mr VATSKALIS: Well, member for Macdonnell, you can have any opinion, you are entitled to your opinion. I do not have a problem with that. What I am saying is, what we propose to put in place is a whole package for fighting the problem of bushfires. If you actually had time this afternoon to listen to the Country Hour you would have heard the positive response from farmers and the pastoralists about our proposal, our package, that we are going put in place. Our package is not only to address only one issue - fine and put somebody in prison, fine them $20 000 or $30 000; our bushfire package is going to address issues including getting the money from people who light the fires. Many times they are sent to court and it costs $5000 and that is it. If you start charging people for the damage they cause that will hit them where it hurts most, in their pockets.
In addition to that, I want to see fines for people who actually light fires that not only burn vast tracks of land but also destroy property and livestock. With regards to the fires, I find it very interesting to see how angry you are about the fires today. I have never seen you so angry before in the previous sessions of parliament. As a matter of fact, as I recall very well, your government then resisted repeatedly calls to declare the …
Mr Elferink: I was angry about the fact that you guys were not responding to the fires months ago.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, I remind you that I know that you have been out of action for a couple of months, but just be a bit restrained in terms of your return.
Mr VATSKALIS: I recall very well your government, the CLP government’s repeated resistance of the declaration of buffel grass as a weed under pressure of the public. Not only did you repeatedly resist the declaration of the weed you encouraged pastoralists to plant it. To come now and cry to us that this buffel grass is a real disaster, you should actually look first at your own side of politics and find out who refused to declare buffel grass as a weed. Who actually encouraged the planting of buffel grass in Central Australia as a feed for livestock? Do not talk to us about the inability, or hypocrisy or refusal to do anything.
This government is doing something. This government is prepared to do something and, despite the fact that you have personal problems on your own side of politics - you are afraid that you might not be re-endorsed for the seat of Macdonnell because you are going to be dumped at the next preselection process, and you want to create a good image of yourself – you come in here and trying to argue about this minister is bad, does not know what he is talking about, this minister writes letters. Of course, I wrote a letter today. I wrote the letter today because I did not receive any answer to the previous letter that I wrote to Anderson eight weeks ago. I have never received any reply from Anderson when I spoke to him about the situation of the roads.
I did something that no one on your side has ever done, I did something that you have never managed to achieve yet, and we will pursue until we have achieved it. We will work very hard. To blame me or anybody in this government for …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: … the failures and inability of your times in politics, is not only unfair but also hypocritical.
But once again, the only reason I am opposing and for my colleagues to oppose the member for Araluen’s bill is that it does not go far enough. We will bring our own package that will include an amendment very similar to the member for Araluen because it is a sensible amendment but I cannot present it by itself. It will come together as a whole package. As we speak, the Cabinet submission is circulating and we will go forward to draft the legislation and in the October sittings the legislation will be here, the amendment will be here. I expect all of you to support it because I know very well at least the member for Araluen will support it.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, we got another six minutes. This is just incredible. It is incredible on a couple of counts. First we have bills before this House on urgency today and we have had that pretty much as a commonplace thing with parliament since the last couple of years. This is a General Business Day, which means that there is ample notice. You would have thought that if a bill is before parliament that is the province of this minister, he would have read it, negotiated – not today, but in February, March or April. Or May, June or July. But August is late.
Problem one: the minister has had ample opportunity to look at this. Problem two: he is claiming that he is in agreement with the fine, but that it is an increment of $5000 too low. That can be changed in committee and I am sure my colleague would have no worries with forgetting the 20 and going to 25. We are all in agreement. Problem three: he is saying that piecemeal changes to an act of parliament are not good and we should have an omnibus amendment that picks up all of the problems he has. He did not elaborate on those, though he did say that entering property to ensure compliance was one of them. I thought there were powers of entry already in the act, but I could be educated on that. I would have thought the minister had ample capacity to enter properties to investigate noxious weeds, feral animals, disease control, and bushfire control. I am sure his act empowers him to do that, but I will stand corrected.
He also thought that the act was deficient because it did not talk about the urban environment. The Bushfires Act, to my recollection, has a bushfires aspect, and urban fires are the province of the Northern Territory Fire Service. I would have thought that if he wants this act to have an urban coverage, that is something that is going to take quite a bit of time, and it is going to take quite some negotiating, for instance, with the unions, fire unions and others, about what is a bushfire and what is an urban fire.
The minister has to be a little more open about divulging where these flaws are in his current legislation. Suffice to say we are in agreement on the main one. Let us fine the people who breach this act and cause damage, the potential for loss of life and immense loss of property in the Centre of Australia, but also a problem in the Top End. I was very pleased to hear the minister stand up and proudly proclaim his environmental credentials on the issue of the harbour. He said pollution in the harbour is a big issue. It is something that offends him terribly and, as a Top Ender, I can understand what he is talking about. Hopefully, he can understand what my colleague is talking about because this is the greatest despoiler of nature, animals, the built environment, improved pasture and assets in the Central Australian area.
This is a significant problem and should not be treated trivially. I am hopeful that we will receive more than the six minutes the minister gave us from other ministers who may be knowledgeable about this issue. For instance, I know that it is a priority for this government because there was, at one stage, a motion put to this parliament that we would cease our business and go and drink with volunteers, including bushfire volunteers, because their work was so important that the work of parliament should go into a temporary recess so that we could enjoy their company, give them the great accolades that were their due and discuss issues that impact on their workplace like, for instance, how the act is going.
That was in April, when this bill was already on the Table. This government tried to portray to us that the great debt due to our bushfire fighters was so important that parliament could go into a small recess. You might recall that there was some discussion about that. We were told that we did not treat matters relating to the great efforts put into place fighting fires as important. The government was going to parade our credentials to these firefighters and say: ‘Look! These people will not come and have a beer with you because they think your work is trivial’. I did go and have a drink with them. I quite enjoyed it. I think my colleague, the member for Daly, was there. I am sure my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, was there. In fact, I know he was there because he is actually a bushfire fighter as well. This man is quite happy to do his job, and at the same time as doing his job, he is quite happy to help his constituents in all manner of things, including protecting their property through fighting bushfires.
Now, enough of that. I will point out that there was a element of hilarity, a little touch of mirth at the meeting, because we looked into the restaurant, which was adjacent to where we were having a cocktail for the volunteers, and the Chief Minister was sitting there eating, thinking that the mirror that she was looking into was a one-way mirror. We knew, on the other side, as she preened herself in the mirror, that she was looking out on the very people she wanted to go and shake hands with, drink beer with, and have all this conviviality, because they were so important.
It was pretty ironic. It certainly was not lost on those people I was drinking with, that parliament had adjourned so the whole lot of us - not a tag team approach where we would go out in ones and twos, but the whole lot of us - were to go out and enjoy the company of these people who had done a great job. I do not resile from the fact that they did go a great job. However, having been given this opportunity by the parliament, this small recess, the Chief Minister found urgent business in actually feeding her face, rather than having a drink with …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr DUNHAM: Eating, okay, not feeding her face, eating.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, please.
Mr DUNHAM: I can understand your sensitivity.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale.
Mr HENDERSON: The point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, is that we should have some …
Ms Scrymgour: He is scum!
Mr HENDERSON: … standards in terms of debate in this House. I find that as being undignified and I ask the member to withdraw it.
Mr DUNHAM: All right, I withdraw, ‘feeding her face’ – eating.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Drysdale.
Mr DUNHAM: And the word …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, please sit. Member for Daly.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I ask the member for Arafura to withdraw the word ‘scum’. If you are so offended by the words of my colleague, scum is offensive.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Arafura.
Mr DUNHAM: So, there we have this happy setting, the Chief Minister is in there eating in a very nice restaurant it was too, at the casino, with one or two people. We were out there with the workers, worker bees, and it puts to a total lie the idea that the recess was for matters of mixing with these fine people, that it was for matters of discussing the impediments to their work, and making their workplace more efficient, like for instance, changing the act. it was merely a trick.
Now we have the minister with months of capacity to look at this. We have the government that is parading this issue as of such importance that the business of the House should come to a halt, and we have a very small margin of disagreement between the minister and the opposition. That small margin is whether we should hit them with a $25 000 fine or a $20 000 fine. I would say there is great scope for collaboration here. I would say there is great scope for my colleague to, with a wink and a nod, go into committee and say, ‘Look, split the difference, make it $22 500 – no Kon, you’re on’. ‘No minister, we will go for the $25 000’. So I am sure that this matter can be resolved tonight.
All those other impediments in his act, he can bring to this parliament, because he certainly did not do it in his debate. He certainly did not tell us the problems in the urban area, in the urban environment, that the Bushfires Act impacts on, and he certainly did not tell us about the difficulty with entering property to inspect for compliance. They are two things we will leave for another day. Let us quarantine those.
By interjection, various of my colleagues have called out that this is not a matter that should wait for sittings of parliament that are convenient for the minister, particularly since he has had it nearly six months. This is a matter that is urgent now, because why? It stops raining, and the grass dries out, and if you have heavy fuel loads, and you have dry conditions that are hot and windy, you have a fire hazard. And there is a little barometer, a little needle that comes up on a gauge, it goes from no high fire danger to very high fire danger, and we are going to be sending that little needle up to a thing called extreme. Now, if this minister is aware of his job, he would know that it is most timely to send out a variety of messages now about making sure your breaks are in place, making sure that the various apparatus used to fight fires is maintained and up to speed, making sure that those bushfire volunteer groups are ready and trained, and making sure that people who might have some element of arson in their make-up are aware that we will kick hard.
That is a very fine thing for the minister to have in his repertoire, and we are happy to help him with it. We are happy to help him because we will put that in his repertoire.
He talked a bit about buffel grass. The issue here is that people who grow moo-cows like to feed them. People who grow moo-cows like to feed them grasses that grow well. Unfortunately, if you grow lots of grasses to feed lots of cattle to make them fat, that is called fuel, so you have a mixed problem. You have good techniques to keep high levels of grass that is nutritious to feed your cows and potentially, that is also a danger, because if a spark gets in there, it burns - like a man who has a big haystack in a shed, good thing; spark, bad thing. Therefore, for you to be talking about the various types of grass species as a difficulty, it is actually an asset. The people responsible for fat cows will tell you this is not such a bad thing. The bad thing is if a spark gets in early and burns it, because high fuel loads should not be seen by the minister as some sort of disaster. A high fuel load is a potential fodder source for your herd. Let us get all that away - we are not talking about buffel grass, or difficulty of getting onto country and seeing if compliance is done, or about urban fires; we are talking about a message to fire bugs.
I know the minister agrees with this because he has told us. I know the Labor Party thinks it is important because they actually stopped the business of parliament to talk about this with the various players. Therefore, let us go ahead with it. If other people in the minister’s incapacity can explain why this has to go through as an omnibus amendment, let them say it, but we certainly have not heard the argument yet. My colleague was spot on when he said somebody woke up this morning - and we know who - went through the Notice Paper and said: ‘Gosh, is that my name there adjourning that bill? I wonder what that means? That might mean I have to talk about it’. Even that has just dropped; that penny just went clunk a little while ago. The tardy letter to the Deputy Prime Minister is now being touted as well: ‘That was the second letter; I sent another one which was not tabled’. His incapacity to jump to his feet because he did not know this was his business, his lame excuses as to what it is about, all point to the fact that this man came to parliament today totally unprepared, on the basis that he thought: ‘General Business Day, that is those guys, it is nothing to do with me’. Well, this is to do with you and what we are trying to do is help you.
Therefore, if you are really worried that the fines should go up, it is due to the industrious nature of my colleague that she has been able to give you a helping hand here. This helping hand, even if it dissuades two or three fire bugs from throwing three or four matches and burning out several thousand hectares of land, is worth it. So, let us give it a bash, and look for a compromise somewhere between a fine of $20 000 and $25 000. I am sure we can do it.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister and my colleagues for their comments. I just restate from the outset why it was that I introduced this bill. Obviously, I will not repeat what I said in my second reading speech but, for the sake of recapping the basis upon which we brought this bill, I will refer to a couple of matters.
Late last year, there were significant bushfires around Alice Springs and one million hectares of property was lost. It included parks and pastoral leases as well as private property. People put their lives at risk in order to fight those fires, and the fires came dangerously close to some people’s homes. There were significant stock losses, and one pastoralist told me of his frustration after the ridiculously low fine imposed on a couple of people convicted of starting fires.
Part of my electorate takes in an area with large rural blocks, namely the area of Ilparpa. Over the years - in fact, it was late last year - they had significant fires there and, of course, constituents had very obvious concerns. As shadow minister for Parks and Wildlife, I am interested not just in Alice Springs but in the Territory generally. I note in the minister’s press release yesterday he states that 37 million hectares of the Northern Territory was burnt out last year.
They were the reasons I brought this bill to the House. I thought they were good reasons and indeed many others did too. There is widespread support for the bill which is why it is so heartening to hear the minister say that he supports it. Can I say though that I did not know what the minister’s position was until I saw his press release issued yesterday and until I got a phone call from the minister ten minutes before we started parliament this morning. His form has just been appalling in this matter and it is easy to see why. It really is a tale of ministerial incompetence and inattention but of course increasingly Territorians are getting use to that with respect to this minister who is fast developing a reputation of getting himself into trouble.
The minister said, just by way of a bit of history, that in November last year he had called for harsher penalties for people who light fires, but he did not do anything. If he was serious he could have introduced a bill. But he has not and now he says that he will not do anything until October. That is 12 months later and of course it is in keeping with the ‘gunna’ attitude of this government. Gunna do this, gunna do that, but they really do so very little. He has had sittings in November last year, February this year, April/May and June and these sittings in August, yet with all of the resources of government he has not brought any legislation to this House. Nothing at all. He has had 12 months contemplating it and yet, it is the opposition that takes the opportunity afforded to us by general business debate to bring the bill to the House.
The member for Drysdale commented that, when we were in Alice Springs, there was yet another opportunity for the minister to present legislation. We did all knock off early at the insistence of the government of course, because they wanted to meet with and honour the volunteers and others involved in the emergency services, and meet with them to thank them for fighting the significant fires in Alice Springs. As stated by the member for Drysdale, the minister was very happy to do all of that. But he was not happy - or could not be bothered is the best way of saying it - he could not be bothered actually bringing legislation that those firefighters would warmly embrace.
It is interesting, too, that it was only yesterday that the minister released a press statement and it really was a case of him looking at the agenda for the weekend thinking: ‘Oh my God, we have the Bushfires Act, what will I do?’ I would not mind betting that the minister did not discuss it with his colleagues either, because I have a strong feeling that the minister was just caught short and was too ashamed even to tell his mates. So he issues, in desperation, a press release yesterday. He took his eye off the ball. He comes up with some unpersuasive reasons as to why it is – certainly, his phone call to me this morning - that the bill before us now should be adjourned. It is fascinating that I read the heading on the minister’s press release. I will deal with that firstly. It says: ‘Government to introduce tough new bushfire penalties’. Now, the one I issued in February this year says: ‘New laws propose tougher penalties for fire bugs’. So thank God we issued our press release because it gave you basically the words for yours issued yesterday. Shame, shame, shame.
There are other similarities. They are striking. The bill introduced by the CLP has proposed that financial penalties for people who deliberately light fires increase from $1000 to $20 000. In the press release issued by Minister Vatskalis yesterday, he says and I quote: ‘We will propose a maximum penalty of $25 000’. A difference of $5000 between us …
Mr Vatskalis: And there is more, yes. But there was nothing more in your press release, was there?
Ms CARNEY: But wait, there is more. I am glad you are inviting more, minister, because there is plenty more of it.
The bill that the CLP introduced proposes that gaol terms be increased from a minimum of six months to five years. The minister’s press release says that he wants to increase six months to five years. Again, an uncanny resemblance. But it is in keeping with this Labor way of doing things of cutting and pasting, cutting and pasting. Whereas I said in an earlier debate that they were cutting and pasting from the other Labor states, I am honoured that this minister is cutting and pasting from me. Thank you. They say that imitation is the best form of flattery. Words almost fail me, but I am flattered.
Of course our aims are identical. This is a serious bill and it is serious business. The way to achieve those aims is amend the Bushfires Act and the Criminal Code. So we are at one; we are absolutely at one on that issue. What was interesting was when the minister rang me at 9.50 this morning, he said he wanted to defer this bill until November because the department was having some problems and he did not have enough time to get things ready for the sittings. Twelve months ago he was contemplating it. In February we introduced this bill. Again, with all the resources of government, he says that his department could not do it. What sort of department are you running? You are the boss. If the minister had turned his mind to this, he would have had his department on top of it. But, alas, the minister forgot, it would seem.
When the minister comes up with a fairly interesting story this morning as to why it is that I should consider deferring this bill, I suggest it was simply code for: ‘Jodeen, I forgot. I forgot to do the work’. So with the exception of $5000, there is no difference between us in relation to these bills - and this is very important and I hope you understand that.
The minister said in his media release that he is thinking of undertaking a review of penalties for deliberately lighting fires in urban areas as well as recovering the expenses incurred in controlling a prohibited bushfire. As the member for Drysdale says, that comes under the Fire and Emergency Act. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the bills presently before us. So I think you would say ‘Snookered’, minister. I do not think that the minister has any choice because he has been in this parliament and he has said that he supports it.
The explanation given in his media release is that he wants to undertake a review of certain matters. He can agree, and we have some amendments, to the amendments that we will deal with in the committee stage and at the same time, he can pursue the review of those matters outlined in his media release. I think you would call this a ‘win-win’ situation, minister.
It really is bunkum to say: ‘Please hold off because we have a couple of amendments’. Those amendments have nothing to do with these bills, and I do hope that he understands. What we can do tonight is we can get the Bushfires Amendment Bill and the amendment to the Criminal Code off the books. There is only $5000 difference between us and what is $5000 between friends, minister?
The amendments have been circulated. I invite you, very seriously, to come with us, so that we can dispense with these bills and government can undertake its review to deal with a lot of associated matters. This is what you call win-win, and the minister should certainly come with us. If the government does not agree to the amendments, it would be childish and churlish in the extreme. I would suggest that it would be very embarrassing for this minister, and, of course the fire season will be over.
I have no idea why it is that the minister apparently has an objection to agreeing to these two bills moving off the books, thereby increasing the penalties for fire bugs, that he agrees with, and we are even game to get up to $25 000, so we are all at one. We are in the middle of the fire season and yet, for reasons that can only be described as small minded and petty politics, there is an indication that he will not come with us. Those people who work at the Bushfires Council, and others who are involved in fighting fires, will be appalled. They will be seriously appalled. And minister, we will be appalled. The government and the minister will just look arrogant and stupid, and lazy for not supporting these bills. I am sorry that the minister has been snookered, but he has, and frankly, I do not think he has any choice other than to …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: The minister will - there is so much to say we could keep going. The minister will look arrogant and stupid unless he comes with us. The amendment should take all of five minutes. I will look forward to that. I will also look forward to the comments of those with an interest in this matter when and if, I should say when, they find out that the minister has opposed us. Perhaps the minister might like a couple of minutes to consider his position and consult with his colleagues. I am very happy to give him that time, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Motion negatived.
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 135)
(Serial 135)
Continued from 26 February 2003.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell)(by leave): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that consideration of the bill be postponed until a later hour.
I received a telephone call last week from the Attorney-General and we had a discussion in relation to this matter. It is one that relates to several other matters that are before this House at the moment, sitting on the Notice Paper, in that there is a High Court decision and a review currently being conducted by the government into matters that relate to issues of cultural law.
The Attorney-General was kind enough to ask me whether I would defer this matter until the General Business Day in November. I understand that we expect the High Court to decide in that time as to whether they will hear this issue. I imagine that they will, and that the matter will be dealt with. It would be quite correct of the government to wait until such time as the High Court has dealt with the issue, simply because you cannot pre-empt the High Court on such matters. I expect that the government will not bring forward a policy which may have to change shortly thereafter because of a ruling from the High Court.
Consequently, I seek leave from the House to have this bill deferred. I would like to leave it, obviously, on the Notice Paper for discussion at a later time to see if it is still an appropriate piece of legislation after the ruling of the High Court, and whatever policy considerations that the government may wish to bear on the issue. Consequently, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I ask that the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take two bills together
Take two bills together
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Charles Darwin University Bill 2003 (Serial 169) and Menzies School of Health Research Amendment Bill 2003 (Serial 170):
(a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings of the bills together; and
(b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
CHARLES DARWIN UNIVERSITY BILL
(Serial 169)
MENZIES SCHOOL OF HEALTH RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 170)
(Serial 169)
MENZIES SCHOOL OF HEALTH RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 170)
Bills presented and read a first time.
_____________
Suspension of Standing Orders
Pass bills through all stages
Suspension of Standing Orders
Pass bills through all stages
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Charles Darwin University Bill 2003 (Serial 169) and Menzies School of Health Research Amendment Bill 2003 (Serial 170) passing through all stages of this sitting.
Motion agreed to.
________________
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move the bills be now read a second time.
When this government came to office, the Chief Minister made it clear that reconstructing and re-invigorating the Northern Territory University was one of the government’s key priorities. Today we are embarking on the single greatest reform of higher education in the Northern Territory since the Northern Territory University was established here in 1990. Members would recall that, in 1980s, the Darwin Institute of Technology and the university Campus of the Northern Territory, a branch of the University of Queensland, provided advanced and higher education to Territorians, but it was limited in its offering.
The merger of these two institutions into the Northern Territory University, under the guidance of the then federal minister, John Dawkins, and then NT Education Minister, Tom Harris, delivered to the Territory a fully-fledged university able to offer real, locally-based education options to students who, until that time, had to seriously consider moving interstate to gain further higher education.
Today we take that process one step further. Today we will reinvent the Northern Territory University, changing its name and bringing together a mix of institutions aimed at providing quality advanced education, higher education and research to our community. This step was necessary because, in the latter part of the 1990s, the Northern Territory University had lost its way. In some ways it brought this on itself through a failure to define its mission and intent and its linkages to local students in its region. In other ways, it became part of a cycle of problems generated because of reductions in funding and resources, leading to a vicious cycle of reductions in students courses and attractiveness.
I was determined to fulfil the Chief Minister’s pledge to bring together a new facility that could reassert its role both here and regionally. With the creation of the Charles Darwin University, for the first time in the Territory’s history, we will have a single world-class facility, offering enhanced tertiary training and research capacities. The university will become an integral part of the social and economic fabric of the Northern Territory and will play a crucial role in the future prosperity of Territorians.
This is a unique part of the world. Its future development and success is dependent on local residents having a unique and complex mix of skills and capacities to meet the particular needs of our community. By combining and building on the many strengths of three of our existing institutions which have operated as separate entities up until now, we will be able to grow our intellectual capital and skills base. The Northern Territory University is, in its current guise, unable to deliver some of those skills to residents, or provide the research base the Territory needs.
The Territory’s small population base but large land mass is one of the biggest challenges the Northern Territory University has faced since its inception. Limited enrolments has meant the university has not been able to provide the full range of courses Territory residents want. Neither could it attract the sort of funds needed to allow it to expand.
In the training area, it has been in direct competition with Centralian College in the delivery of some programs leading to duplication of administrative functions. NTU’s limited size has also meant it has never been able to grow its research capacity or meet the development needs of the Territory. Its size has also stopped it from attracting research income and, consequently, the senior researchers needed to support development in the Territory and provide high quality teaching and academic leadership.
Charles Darwin University will draw together a number of the Territory’s fragmented and separately funded institutions: the NTU; Centralian College; and the Menzies School of Health Research. While each of these institutions has achieved a great deal separately, bringing them together will reduce duplication in the system, and fragmentation of effort. It will greatly strengthen our capacity in training and higher education delivery and research.
It will see the Territory attract more tertiary and research dollars. It will allow us to further explore the rich research potential of our area of the world. Growing our research capacity will help us to attract world class researchers and academics to participate in projects related to our tropical and desert environments that will be of national and international significance. Importantly, it will provide more young people with a real alternative to studying interstate and staying there once they have completed their studies.
Charles Darwin University means for the first time, we will truly have a university for all Territorians, not just those living in the Top End. It will give Centralians access to tertiary education that previously they would have had to leave home to receive. At the same time, Top End residents will benefit from the quality VET delivery offered by Centralian College which will become an important arm of Charles Darwin University. We are on the brink of exciting new opportunities here in the Territory, opportunities that we want our young people to be able to take full advantage of, and Charles Darwin University will play a very important role in ensuring they are able to do so.
Its enhanced status among tertiary institutions and greater focus on research will ensure that more young Territorians are able to make the decision to stay in the Territory to undertake further studies and subsequently use their qualifications and skills to build a fulfilling career right here. An important element of the new university will be the creation of the Institute of Advanced Studies, which will provide the Territory with a world-class research capacity, including post graduate research training in niche areas. Close links will be established between the Institute of Advanced Studies and the various faculties at university, giving tertiary students access to outstanding academics and high quality teaching. This will help us to attract more interstate and international students here, and grow our enrolment base.
Another important arm of Charles Darwin University will be the Menzies School of Health Research. Menzies’ reputation is known throughout the world, particularly for its work in areas of tropical and indigenous health. While Menzies will become a controlled entity of the university, its existing research functions will not change. One of the greatest benefits attached to Menzies developing strong formal ties with the university, is that it will receive increased Commonwealth support of research infrastructure grants to the order of $3m each year.
On another matter, I am aware the name Charles Darwin University, for some people, may be contentious. I want to assure members of the House, not only does the family of Charles Darwin strongly support the use of his name in this way, but Charles Darwin undeniably remains one of the great thinkers of the modern era. He is widely acknowledged as a scientist who transformed the way we see ourselves, and for the high standards he set in critical thinking and observation. It is entirely appropriate, and an honour, for the Territory to build a university using his distinguished name.
I now turn to the two bills being introduced. The first will allow for the establishment of the new Charles Darwin University, and the second will allow for the creation of a close and formal relationship between the new university and the Menzies School of Health Research. The intention to create a new university means that the legal status of the contributing parties, in this case Centralian College and the Northern Territory University, will be disestablished and then amalgamated to form a new university. Amendments to the Menzies School of Health Research legislation will allow the school to retain its independence while establishing this close and formal relationship with the new university. Both institutions will derive mutual benefit from the merger leading to increased capacity in health, education and research for the Territory.
It is intended that that Charles Darwin University Bill will alter existing provisions of the Northern Territory University Act to implement a new structure for the university council, create a single academic board, establish the new name and establish the Institute of Advanced Studies. The primary focus of this bill is to create a tertiary and higher education environment in the Northern Territory that will contribute to sustainable social and economic development. The bill establishes a university committed to providing education, research and public service that will create a knowledge capital for the future welfare and prosperity of Territorians.
The drivers that have shaped the reforms for the new university are compelling. The Territory needs a strong university to attract and retain a skilled population. We also need a university with the capacity to produce and support talented people in the professions. It is this resident, intellectual and skill capacity that will power future Territory development.
A university built on the principles of providing education, research and public service relevant to the Territory, characterised by equity and accessibility is the only way forward. The new university embraces an attitude of service, especially service to government, industry, commerce and the community. The Charles Darwin University Bill describes a university which has a strong community extension role, and a considerably strengthened research role. Adding these elements to the pre-existing offerings of the university completes a framework that will meet the Territory’s needs now and into the future. This model for the new university does not diminish the importance of existing TAFE and higher education courses already on offer. Rather, this model adds value to them and strengthens the university’s ability to meet the tertiary and training needs of Territorians.
The Charles Darwin University Bill establishes an institution and ensures all Territorians have pathways to tertiary education and training opportunities.
The proposed amendments to the Menzies School of Health Research Act establishes the close formal relationship between the Menzies School of Health Research and the new university. The key objective of this new relationship is to realise enhanced financial benefits and further strengthen work force and research capacity in the best interests of the Territory.
The original functions of the Menzies School of Health Research are preserved in the amended legislation. The bill establishes a relationship that assures a high level of respect and recognition for Menzies within the university community. The bill proposes a relationship that supports growth and excellence. Significantly, this relationship ensures that Menzies research staff will be recognised in the Australian university sector as leaders in tropical and indigenous health research and postgraduate training. Furthermore, the research staff will contribute to the success of building a university of distinction, serving the Northern Territory as it should be served.
It is the intention of the Charles Darwin University Bill and the proposed amendments to the Menzies School of Health Research Act to give Territorians access to an education and knowledge environment that recognises indigenous culture and empowers, emancipates and provides the means for people to control their own futures. It is the start of a new and exciting era for training, higher education and research in the Territory. Charles Darwin University will build on our existing strengths in these areas to become a crucial lynchpin in our efforts to build a better, smarter Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend these bills to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SWIMMING POOL FENCING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 168)
(Serial 168)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to consider an amendment to section 19 of the Swimming Pool Fencing Act to clarify flexibility in the exercise of discretion by the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority. The bill will allow the authority to register some swimming pools that cannot meet the required Australian Standards without compromising the intent of the legislation to provide an effective barrier for small children from gaining access to a residential swimming pool.
The capability to register non-standard enclosures currently exists in sections 19 and 20 of the act. As section 19(1) of the act currently stands, the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority must be satisfied with all of the criteria established by section 19(1) in order to be able to consider the registration of a swimming pool under this provision. Section 19(1)(b) requires the pool to fit into one of a number of specified descriptions for a non-standard enclosure, as set out in section 20.
The primary intent of section 19 is to provide the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority with the discretion to approve registration of a non-standard enclosure. This discretion is provided where it is considered unreasonable or impractical to require full compliance with the fencing standards, and where the authority is satisfied that in all the circumstances, there is not an unacceptable risk to children and that the owner understands the risks of the pool to children.
The proposed amendment ensures that this discretion by the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority is able to be applied without the necessity for the non-standard enclosure to be linked to the specified descriptions of a non-standard enclosure, as set out in section 20 of the act.
The proposed amendment is minor and only requires two words to be inserted into section 19(1) to make the provision easier to understand and administer. However, section 19(1) of the act has been redrafted to allow the application of either section 19(1)(a) or section 19(1)(b) separately and not together.
The Swimming Pool Fencing Act commenced on 1 January 2003. Honourable members will also recall that at the time of its introduction, the opposition had fanciful predictions that pool fencing inspectors would be breaking through doors and gassing dogs, and similar. None of this has happened. What has happened is that regimentation of the new legislation has been carried out without severe disruption, and certainly without any of the predictions made by critics prior to the commencement of the legislation.
This smooth implementation has been achieved because the legislation has generally worked well, and because of the cooperative approach of the Pool Fencing Unit established in my department. The unit has gone, at times, to extraordinary lengths to work with pool owners to find ways of achieving compliance with the Australian Standards while maintaining the amenity that pool owners seek.
Over 8000 inspections have now been carried out by the inspectors. While this is a significant achievement in the seven months since the legislation came into effect, it is all the more significant because it has been achieved with just five formal complaints. More importantly, over 3200 pools have now been registered and comply with the legislation to meet at least the previous council by-laws, where they were in existence, or now satisfy the higher level of Australian Standards required under the act.
In the development of plans for the implementation of the legislation, it was considered that a reasonable percentage of pools previously registered by the councils would comply at least with the previous by-laws. This has proven not to be the case. The standard of pool fencing and barriers encountered by the inspectors is generally much lower than expected. While this supports the decision to introduce overarching legislation for the Territory, it has meant that the workload is significantly greater than had been expected.
Without doubt, the most difficult problems to resolve are those that occur where a boundary fence is part of the barrier to a pool and where neighbours do not agree. This is not a new problem. Both Darwin and Palmerston council by-laws had the same requirements.
Priority in the first few months had been given to inspections associated with property transfers and a change in tenancy of a property. This has meant that it has been possible to ensure that the new legislation has generally not delayed property transfers, but it has meant that many people who have applied for registration have not yet had an inspection. The Pool Fencing Unit is addressing the backlog and expects, in the near future, to be able to guarantee an inspection for any property within three weeks of application.
The Real Estate Institute and the majority of its members have been very cooperative in assisting the Pool Fencing Unit to minimise the impact on property sales and tenancy transfers. There are, however, still occasions when some agents and owners leave pool fencing inspections to the last minute, and then expect immediate inspection and priority. This causes inconvenience to other pool owners whose inspections are delayed.
On introduction of the legislation, I made it clear that the primary aim is to place an effective barrier between small children and residential pools, and to provide time for adult intervention. The Australian Standards for pool fencing were adopted in the legislation, with some variations to accommodate local conditions. The Australian Standards are based on detailed analysis of the best means of minimising risk. The Australian Standards are precise. ‘Bending of the rules’ could expose individual inspectors, the government and, of course, parents to serious consequences should a bending of the rules be present in a case where a child dies. At the same time, there are occasions where it can be unreasonable, or impractical to require full compliance with all of the requirements of the standards. In some cases, the nature of the land and the construction of the pool is such that it is not appropriate to require fencing in accordance with the standards.
It is natural for people to resent requirements that appear to be inflexible. Complaints tend to disappear, however, with the provision of explanations and the sensible examination of options. The absence of an inspection fee for existing pools, and the availability of funds to assist in achieving compliance are also of considerable interest to most pool owners.
Nevertheless, there will be complaints and we encourage people who are upset to let us know. At each inspection, inspectors will provide the owner with advice on the avenues available if the owner is dissatisfied with the inspection or its findings, or wishes to seek a review. In the first instance, we encourage contact with the manager of the Pool Fencing Unit which may result in a new inspection, consideration of the exercise of discretion by the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority, or consideration of an appeal by the Swimming Pool Fencing Review Committee. If, at the end of the process, the owner is still not satisfied, they can take the case further to the Lands and Mining Tribunal, as provided for in the legislation.
I should note that the government’s early registration incentive scheme provides pool owners with generous financial assistance in making their pool safe for our children. This scheme provides a grant of up to one-third of the estimated cost and the remaining two-thirds as an interest-free loan. The scheme is capped at $5000, which meets most remedial action or new fencing requirements. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass bill through all stages
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Swimming Pool Fencing Amendment Bill 2003 (Serial 168) passing through all stages at this sittings.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, tonight I farewell another Territorian whose life in the bush sums up so much of what has become, in some sense, part of the forgotten history of the Northern Territory - a history of battling hard to make a living in the early days of the Territory. It is the sort of life we would all do well to remember in this, the 25th year of self-government. It demonstrates the kind of tenacity we will all need in moving into the future. I speak in tribute of Henry Peckham, legendary stockman, truckie, football player, station manager and family man.
Henry Peckham was born in 1925 in Darwin, son of Harry and Lindy. Harry, of course, was the son of the mailman, ‘The Fizzer’ who featured in the book, We of the Never Never. His mother, Lindy, who passed away only a few short years ago, was the matriarch of Katherine’s Aboriginal community. Henry passed away aged 77 on 15 June this year. He is survived by brothers and sisters, George Peckham, Marie Dowling, Jaqueline King, and Bernadette Morrison; with Irene Kelly, Stanley Peckham and Sheila Fry predeceasing him. Henry Peckham is also survived by his wife of over 30 years, Wendy and their son Andrew, and stepson Ken, from his first wife, Jean. The others who survived him are Robert, Henry Jnr, Kenny, Jeanette, Georgina, Donny and stepson Kevin; as well as many grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren.
In 1937, the Peckham brothers were sent to Alice Springs for schooling, living at the Bungalow. Henry left as soon as he could and set off as a ringer at Ambalindum Station for 10 bob a week. When war broke out, Henry tried to enlist but was knocked back for being under-age. However, he assisted the war effort nonetheless. He headed north and was employed along with Tom Fisher at the Vestey-owned Manbulloo Station just west of Katherine, supplying beef to the army camps in the area. He went on from there, working at other Vestey stations. He achieved the enviable status of head stockman at Willeroo at the age of 17, before working on the Mistake Creek and Ord River properties.
Make no mistake about it, it was a tough life on the stations in those days and there were few creature comforts at the homestead let alone on cattle drives or in the stock camps. The fact that Henry rose up quickly reputation-wise at such a young age is a tribute to his mental and physical toughness. Late in 1941, Henry’s father was killed in a train accident so he was forced to leave the pastoral industry for a time and went working as a truck driver to provide financial assistance for his mother.
As he had already demonstrated, Henry had a huge capacity for work. At first he worked with Ron Sandell who ran trucks in the Katherine area before being employed by the legendary Len Tuit in 1946 as Len established his trailblazing bus routes up and down the track. Len Tuit and Rex Farmilow began a service linking the railhead at Larrimah with Alice Springs and the north bound mail. As people returned to the north after the war, this expanded to two trucks and buses weekly to Darwin. Throughout his careers as a truckie, Henry had a faultless record, not once rolling his vehicle despite the appalling condition of the Stuart Highway in those far gone days.
By the mid-1940s, Henry Peckham took up another great love – Aussie Rules, a sport he was to dominate as a player for a decade from 1947 to 1957, playing for Pioneers in Alice Springs in the Dry Season and for Wanderers during the Wet Season in Darwin. It was during this period he played briefly for West Adelaide, one of the first Territory players to play at representative level interstate. Nicknamed ‘Twinkle Toes’, Peckham’s prowess as a player was the stuff of dreams. Indeed, the late Don Bonson Senior was quoted as saying: ‘Henry Peckham was the best footballer the Northern Territory had every produced’. He inspired Pioneers Football Club to three winning grand finals in 1947, 1948 and 1949, winning the Mail Medal in that final year - the South Australia/Northern Territory country equivalent of the Magarey Medal. This had followed a debut match between an Aboriginal team and an Allied Works team in July 1947. The Aboriginal side won by 19 points including five goals from the boot of Peckham, who was named best on the ground.
In 1950, Henry was recruited by West Adelaide, kicking six goals in his first match against the then reigning premiers North Adelaide to great acclaim. Working as a welder while in the big smoke, Henry in the end only played six games with 10 goals from full forward before returning to the Territory. Although his full-time playing days finished in 1957, he was later to return as coach of Pioneers to a premiership in 1967 and still managed to play A grade up until 1968 at the age of 42.
But Henry’s great love was the station life. He worked for a long time on Ucharonidge Station for many years and later managed Drysdale Station in the Kimberley. By the 1980s he was a manager at the Aboriginal-owned Beswick Station, as well as Carson River and Theda Stations in the Kimberley, as well as also working at the CSIRO’s Manbulloo and King River Research Stations.
Throughout all this, Henry maintained a quiet dignity and dry wit. I remember him in the days he was running Beswick - still a hard worker by then and in his mid-50s. A tough, nuggetty bloke, he was more than somewhat cynical about the government bureaucrats he had to deal with while running the station, but he also had the capacity to shrug his shoulders and get on with the job. He was immensely popular with the Aboriginal ringers at Beswick. In fact, he was respected by all in the Northern Territory pastoral industry.
Henry’s life epitomises the pattern of many Aboriginal people over the last century. His love of the bush and his capacity for hard work was matched by his close ties to family - coming as he did from that huge family linked back to Nanna Lindy Peckham. He will be missed by his siblings, as well as his many children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and great great grandchildren and many, many others of the wonderful Peckham clan. Henry Peckham, rest in peace, you champion.
Whilst I am on my feet, I would like to talk about the Northern Territory Under 18 Men’s Hockey team which, in May this year, won the Australian National Championships in Perth. The competition featured teams from every Australian state and territory, and the NT side were able to come out on top to win the championships - a significant achievement given the comparatively small hockey player base the Northern Territory has to draw from.
Furthermore, four members of the NT team were selected in the Australian Under 18 team to play against New Zealand later these month. These players are Colin Hennessey, Des Abbott, Greg Anstess and Joel Carroll. I wish them the very best, and congratulate them on their team and individual successes.
Of course, hockey is a team sport, and I will mention the remainder of the NT representative side which competed at, and won, the national championships. They are: Jarrod Lockley, Laurence Pomery, Adrian Lockley, Miebaka Dede, Dash Hewitt, Cameron Finlay, Aidan Hill, Jamie White, Travis Carroll, Jarrod Sack, Keith McManemin, and Daniel Versteegh. The team manager was Michael McGregor, coach was Jason Butcher, and assistant coach was Mark Walsh.
A point of interest is that out of the total squad of 16, six players from the Northern Territory Under 18 Hockey Team are from Alice Springs. I am not sure if hockey has set some sort of record in having such a contingent of players from Central Australia, but I am sure it must be close. The new hockey surface at Traeger Park in Alice Springs is proving to be an important arena for developing champions. I am sure the first-class facilities on offer at Traeger Park have helped hockey in that region.
In June, I held a reception at Parliament House for the Darwin-based team members, officials and their parents. In October, I will be hosting a morning tea for the Alice Springs-based contingent. It was terrific to meet such a great group of young people who had just done the Territory proud. The reception was just a small way to not only say thank you to the players for their efforts, but also to acknowledge the role of their families who provide so much support behind the scenes.
It is not too often that the Territory can claim to be national champions. I congratulate NT Hockey for their commitment to developing hockey as a sport. It is truly pleasing to see such talent at this level, and there are encouraging signs for Territory players to be performing at an international level in the near future.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute tonight to a very special person, Ralph Edward Smith, or Ted, as we knew him. Ted Smith was born in New Zealand on 10 December 1924 in a small town, Wairoa. He was the youngest of five children, and his family travelled to Melbourne when Ted was only four years of age. Ted was rebellious and a wild boy who hated school or being confined. He commenced working in his teenage years, until he went bush to visit some relatives and worked on their farm. He joined the RAAF and served in north Australia and in Japan. After the war ceased, Ted came back to the Northern Territory to live.
I knew Ted Smith well because he taught my daughter, Michelle, to ride. It was he who instilled in her a love of horses, and I know there are many young people like my Michelle who benefited from Ted’s care and attention. He was indeed a very special person to many people in our special part of Australia.
He arrived in 1946 in search of an adventure and a quid. He quickly decided to stay and contribute to the development of Central Australia in a way that future generations can only aspire to and be proud of. Ted’s life and achievements is the stuff legends. He was a mica miner at Harts Range, a gold miner at Tennant Creek, mined and carted copper from places like the ‘Home of Bullion’. He drove dozers to open up Rum Jungle. He was a truck driver and machine operator all over the Territory.
Ted worked for legends like Kurt Johannsen. He ran Baldocks and Drings, and then started Northern Transport with his mates. Tour operating was the next adventure, and then years with Transport and Works as both an operator and manager. A few years with the Conservation Commission sorting out Tech Services led to a very reluctant retirement.
That is a pretty quick summary of Ted’s life. But Ted was very special to many people because he has done it, and he has done it hard. His attitude was, ‘If it moves I can drive it or ride it’. He was tough in every sense of the word, he thought he was bulletproof, and he so rightly earned respect of his peers. He was very comfortable in anyone’s company. Anyone could go up and enjoy Ted Smith’s company. He was self-confident, but always a gentlemen, and he was always courteous in that ‘old school’ way. He made people around him feel that they were being listened to, and what they had to say was important, no matter what age it was. That it is why I know he was so successful with young people of Michelle’s age in helping them.
Ted had many, many friends in Central Australia, and there were many families who started in the 1940s and 1950s in Central Australia who were represented at that funeral. That represents how far Ted was well known. He wanted the best for his family at all times and strove very hard to reach that end. He was an especially good parent, husband and grandparent, and it was his more relaxed lifestyle, like horses in retirement, that brought out the best in him, I think.
Ted will be remembered, and along with Len Kittle, Ian Lovegrove and Ivan Wiese, will be inducted into the Shell Rimula Wall of Fame Honour Roll at a function at the Road Transport Hall of Fame on Saturday, 30 August 2003, and it is well deserved that we remember Ted in that way. Given that he gave so much to the Territory, Ted deserves to be remembered as truly one of those pioneers.
I extended my sympathy to his wife Naomi, and his two girls, Debbie and Judy. Years ago, I taught Debbie at Ross Park when I first came to Alice Springs. I remember what a fine family they were.
I also pay tribute tonight to a teacher colleague of mine, Gwen Ferry. I am reading from a eulogy that was prepared by Mary Meldrum and delivered by Mary at Gwen’s funeral. Gwen Ferry taught with me at Ross Park. She taught at Braitling, Traeger Park and Bradshaw. She was a private, dignified and refined lady, with wise words and a helpful hand.
Her parents farmed in the Albany area of Western Australia. They had four children, and Gwen was born in 1919. Her brother, Vic attended the funeral, so it was very nice to meet one of her family. In her primary school years, she did correspondence schooling from home. She attended the Albany High School and went on to Teacher’s College in Perth. In those days, that was an achievement in itself as not many girls had the opportunity to go on to a professional life. Gwen taught in Western Australia for many years. She then branched out and had quite an amazing career.
She joined the Commonwealth Occupation Forces and went to Japan, and then on to Hong Kong. She was seconded to England four times to teach. She taught students in Malaysia, Singapore, British Solomon Islands, Republic of Nauru and the Ascension Islands in the South Pacific.
How fortunate Alice Springs was that, in 1974, the Commonwealth Education Department posted her to Ross Park School, where she finished, in Alice Springs, her long and distinguished career as a teacher. At these schools, Gwen was a special education teacher working with small groups of children. She is well remembered for her quiet, yet firm manner, which quickly gained the cooperation of children in her care. She was also well known, and I remember this very much as being one of her colleagues, even though she is a very quiet person, she always stood up for her students, what was best, and she would not be backward in putting forward her point of view to the hierarchy, no matter what. I guess she will always be remembered as a teacher of the ‘old school’ who sought to maintain high standards of professionalism and devotion to her students.
Sport was very much a part of her life. Daryl White was one of her students and, over the years, she followed his career closely and she was very proud of Daryl and what he achieved with the Brisbane Lions. She was a member of the Memorial Club for 25 years and, during this time she joined the bowling club, and became a very active member, serving the bowling club as president for nine years and secretary for 13 years. She was awarded life membership in 1992. She was a keen and good lawn bowler and won many club championships. She retired from the game in 2002 but still took an active interest. She was a foundation member of the Northern Territory Ladies Bowling Association. She was their first president and went on to become the Country Vice-President, holding that position for many years, where she represented the country clubs. She was an inaugural member of the Probus Club formed in 1994, and served as both secretary and treasurer for years. She was also a member of the Country Women’s Association for a long time.
Gwen moved to the Old Timers Home and became an active member of the auxiliary, being the assistant secretary, and looked after Neighbourhood Watch activities and anything else going.
As you can see, Gwen really had a very active life and I have to say again, that the Old Timers provides a wonderful environment for people like Gwen who like to see out the end of their life in a very close, warm environment. I am sure we all have many memories of Gwen, very much a dignified lady, and very much one of those school teachers that you wish had taught your children.
I will just leave you with this quote that Mary gave us at the funeral, and it sums up very much how Gwen thought:
Yesterday is history
Tomorrow is still a mystery
But today is a gift
That’s why it’s called the Present.
Tomorrow is still a mystery
But today is a gift
That’s why it’s called the Present.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to cover a few issues tonight. The first issue I wish to cover is a big gold star in the middle of the minister’s forehead. The minister I am referring to is the minister for Education. Last night I raised an issue in this Chamber about a student who was ultimately under his care and responsibility, and I was very pleased that the minister approached me this morning and explained the circumstances of the delay in the government getting back to the student involved. I am delighted to see that he took the time and the courtesy for a single student, and it was important enough for him to turn his attention to. Therefore, if the student gets a big gold star, so should the minister.
I was hoping tonight to hear from the Minister for Community Development on issues that I raised last night in relation to the supply of the most basic and essential services in my electorate. Indeed, I was hoping that he was going to reply to all of that during adjournments tonight. He alluded to it, in a round about way, today in Question Time, where he referred to the fact that he had heard my speech last night. I was hoping to hear some reply tonight. However, I will quote the minister this morning, and I will take him up on his very kind invitation. I will remind the minister of the invitation that he made. He said, I quote:
- Madam Speaker, we are talking about letters and the member for Macdonnell said in adjournment last night,
that he would go hand-in-hand with me - and that would be a pretty picture, us holding hands together, going
to the Commonwealth government and fronting them up on essential services.
Well, he is right, it would be a pretty picture.
Just as an aside, I was reading last night in a book that every human being on the planet is actually related, because the mitochondrial DNA which exists in our body is so specific that it can actually be traced back to a mere seven individual women living in Africa some time in the past. That means that the minister is my brother, and that is why I want to give the big teddy bear a hug. I would like to go with him to Canberra, hand-in-hand if needs be, to kick down the minister’s door - our other relation, a distant cousin I might say - and try to do something about the deplorable state of essential services in my electorate. If that means that I have to kick down the federal minister’s door with the Minister for Community Development beside me, I would be delighted to do so. I cannot wait to receive a phone call saying: ‘We are on the plane, we are going to Canberra and we are going to cause some trouble’. No problems with that at all; I will sit next to him and, if he wants to, I will hold hands the whole way down.
It is an important issue – and I know I am being a little flippant about it – but it is an important issue. I know I should not be flippant about it, but if the minister is serious, believe me, I will be happy, quite publicly, to go to Canberra with him to see if we can make some change to the important shortcomings in these people’s lives in the provision of the most simple and basic things like running water, electricity and decent sewerage. I will combine with any person, under almost any circumstances, to try to bring about those changes for the people who live in my electorate.
Thank you, minister. I hope that you will forward the invitation genuinely and the moment you do, you let me know, I will be on the plane with you.
I also make inquiry of the minister for Police in relation to the tri-state arrangements which are planned for the area around Surveyor-General’s Corner in the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara country which, of course, is on the South Australian, Western Australian and Northern Territory borders. Quite sensibly, the government has accepted that the AP lands, as they are generally known, do flow across state borders and the approach has been between the three governments to develop some sort of tri-service/tri-state service delivery. This is a good thing and the government, as long as they proceed sensibly and do not challenge the sovereignty of any of the states or territories involved, should proceed and make things happen.
I believe, however, that involved in this is the construction of a centre, or a police station, or a centre of administration - a building which is valued guesstimately in the order of about $6m. The fact is that the three states still exist and, looking at the communities in that particular part of the world, the community which would probably be best suited to take such a building on would be the community of Docker River. It would probably be the most central of the three communities, in the tri-state area and the AP lands. The Giles Weather Station is probably not big enough to accommodate such a building. Docker River, with its existing infrastructure, is an excellent place to put such a building.
I urge the minister to argue with his interstate colleagues that the centre be placed at Docker River in preference to the other two states, so that the jobs that are created will go to the community and the people of Docker River. Whilst the government can afford to look at tri-state arrangements, I still tend to be a parochial, local member and will stand up for the people who live in my electorate, namely Docker River, and urge the minister to do the same for fellow Territorians. I really hope, wish and pray that the minister will be able to come into this Chamber, sooner rather than later, and announce that this particular building, which essentially is going to be an emergency services building, be placed in the community of Docker River and that community enjoy all of the proceeds and good things that flow from it.
Another big gold star for government is that I was in Kintore recently and, lo and behold, the construction of the Kintore Police Station is under way; something that I have lobbied for way back in the CLP days. It was always going to happen eventually I suppose, and finally it has. It is a very important building to construct. I have a great regard and great respect for the ACPO who has soldiered on valiantly in that community for the last six or seven years, Andrew Japaljari Spencer, a man whom I have very great and high regard. In fact, I have seen Mr Spencer work from all the way back when I was in the police force. One thing I know about Mr Spencer is what he may have lacked in some areas, in terms of literacy and those sorts of things - and he is by no means illiterate, I say – but what he may have lacked in those areas he made up for in just pure integrity and decency. Never, in all the years that I knew Andrew Spencer, and have still known Andrew Spencer, have I ever doubted his honesty, his integrity and his dedication to the job that he does.
So much so that I remember the time that, unfortunately, I went to a triple fatal near Kintore. ACPO Spencer arrived, momentarily shocked by the loss of three family members, then went on and did his duty without so much as batting an eyelid. I do not know if I would have the courage to conduct myself in the extraordinary fashion that ACPO Spencer did on that occasion. He is a monument to the uniform that he wears. Finally, a lot of that is being recognised by the government spending money on a police station in the Kintore community and seeing that ACPO Spencer has proper support with local police constables hopefully being posted there at some point into the future.
On the same issue, however, I wish to be a bit critical of government. An issue I also wish to raise with the minister - and I raised it in estimates briefly, unfortunately not for long enough - is the issue of the pressure now being brought to bear upon the Conway family at Kings Creek Station. Kings Creek Station, as members may or may not be aware, is the station that is right on the border of Watarrka National Park and it has some 300 000 tourist movements through that area every year. As good samaritans, the people of Kings Creek Station from time to time in the past had to deal with motor vehicle accidents. They responded without hesitation, using their staff to assist when they could. However, that situation has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. I say that because those people in my electorate now have to respond on a regular basis to very serious and fatal motor vehicle accidents, and they have to do it so regularly that the tax that this has effectively applied upon them is enormous.
Some 300 000 people move through that area every year, nearly all of them, tourists. There is no support other than limited support indicated during the estimates process by the minister for police. I hope that the minister realises that there is now such an urgent need for the people at Kings Creek Station to have proper support. In fact, I would go so far as to say there is now a need for a permanent police and emergency services presence in the Kings Creek area.
I could be corrected on this, but I believe that some six fatal motor vehicle accidents have been attended by the staff of Kings Creek Station, and we are talking about people who are station hands. They are not trained, nor are they equipped to be able to properly deal with these emergencies when they occur. They act as good samaritans. The cost in man hours alone is enormous. I have, in the past, stood by the airstrip at about one o’clock in the morning with the staff of Kings Creek Station waiting for the Royal Flying Doctor to come so that they could stretcher out a patient who had suffered a neck injury as a result of an accident on the Mereenie Loop road.
I believe that there is only one registered nurse in the area, who not only has to look after Kings Creek Station and the Kings Canyon area, but also has to look after a medical district as far as Ukaka and beyond, which is an over-taxing of a resource. It really needs to be attended to. I am not entirely sure what the current arrangements are in relation to the single nurse who is out there, but I urge the health minister to look at this aspect of the situation at Kings Creek and inquire as to how nursing numbers can be improved or services can be improved in the area. If the nurse makes a mistake because of the lack of sleep or pressure that has been brought to bear by the sheer workload, then the government may be liable, as a result of such a mistake, to a legal action.
It is incumbent upon government to look after their staff. I know that all the nurses in all of these remote communities work very hard. In this instance, particular attention needs to be paid to the circumstances of this nurse. I hope the minister takes the time to at least inquire as to the amount of work that that nurse has to do and the hours that nurse has to keep. I do not mean this as a criticism of government, but it is time that arrangements in that area through Kings Creek and Kings Canyon is looked at because of the sheer volume of people who are going through the area and the demands that are being placed on those folk.
I also raise an issue tonight that I raised earlier today. It is the issue of roads, roads, roads, roads and roads. The minister’s own department, on radio in Alice Springs during an interview, admitted that there had been no roads funding increases in the last five or six years, I think was the time frame given. That goes back to the former CLP government - we are now talking about a Labor government. No road funding increase including CPI, so effectively a cut every year at the rate of inflation.
During that interview, the department also admitted that there were substantial increases in traffic on those roads, and the roads were deteriorating more quickly as a result. The road situation is becoming inordinately poor, not only in my electorate in Central Australia, but throughout the whole of the Northern Territory. It is something that I will harp on and continue to harp on. If you allow your roads to deteriorate, it will cost you twice as much in the long run to bring them back up to speed. It is now becoming a national disgrace. Steve Liebman from the Today Show was asked a question while he was at the Garma Festival, and he described the roads in that part of the world as being ‘a bit pot-holey’. Well, there is nothing unusual in that; nearly every rural and remote road in the Territory is in the same condition. However, they are deteriorating fast, and the ‘Beware of Bulldust’ sign has been exposed for so long to sunlight on the Plenty Highway, that the word ‘Danger’, which was presumably originally printed in red ink, has faded into almost near illegibility.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired, member for Macdonnell.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, first, let me pick up on that point by the member for Macdonnell regarding nursing numbers in that area. That is actually part of one of the primary health care access program zones. I have had meetings recently with the federal Minister for Health, Senator Kay Patterson, and we are hoping that the Commonwealth is going to finalise the amount of money that it is going to be put into those Central Australian Zones for health. It will mean a significant injection of funds into those areas, and it will also mean a significant injection of numbers of staff in those areas. I am very happy for you to contact my office specifically on that particular area. As soon as we get the information from the Commonwealth, I will be happy to provide you with those details.
It was my great pleasure to be at the official opening of the extensions of the Royal Darwin Hospital, which the Chief Minister opened on 7 July this year. Achievements such as this do not just happen. They rely and depend on people with vision, determination and a range of specialist skills. Almost 10 years ago, it became obvious that what was initially a casualty department of a reasonably busy hospital was being fast outstripped by complex clinical demands and an ever increasing number of presentations.
Individuals, such as Dr V J Salvarajah, commenced an early campaign of constructive lobbying. Others, such as Dr Greg Treston, Dr Didier Palmer and Dr Len Notaras continued that ten year campaign. As always, to facilitate such projects, numerous individuals are involved. Jane Mackintosh must be recognised as the determined development manager, never afraid of coming forward to meet a challenge. Along with Laurie King and Graeme Ferns, who worked tirelessly to realise the dream, individuals such as these epitomise the real dedication that makes Royal Darwin Hospital the outstanding facility that it is.
It took former hospital General Manager, Michael Martin, Peter Plummer, Steven Muggleton, Len Notaras, and more recently, Vicki Geytenbeek, supported by the hospital management board, to follow through the dream from those first stages to reality. A number of clinical users groups also played key roles, not only in fashioning the emergency department, but also the operating rooms, intensive care, coronary care and high dependency unit, with two of many advocate names being Professor Ian O’Rourke and Dr Dianne Stephens. There were of course many, many more - nurses, doctors and clinical staff including those such as Joan Ivinson who had already set up the sterilising facility, and the team who had made the operating rooms functional. Dave McHugh, at the time CEO of Transport and Works, with Damien Berger and David Rolland working with DIPE, along with Mike ‘Fish’ Fishendon all contributed significantly. The builders Sitzler Brothers and Barclay Mowlem, well represented by ‘Big Steve’ Shenfield, made it happen. However, it took the unique architectural skills of Spowers Di Carlo Potts to fashion the plans for this fine structure.
I would just like to reflect as well, that the Royal Darwin Hospital actually moved from Myilly Point in 1982 to its current site. There has been a very significant change in architecture since that time. Clearly, in 1982, the Northern Territory was expecting an ice age fairly soon, because they actually developed the building on Canadian plans and also from a Canberra building - the Woden hospital - and has snow caps. The most interesting thing - those of you who actually know the Royal Darwin Hospital – is that it is actually built on a snow mound. They actually built the hospital up so there would be a snow mound and there is a moat around the building. Next time you are there, have a look for those moats.
However, the new extensions to the hospital have not used that particular type of plan; they have used a modern tropical design more suited to the climate of Darwin. It is a very beautiful building. It is fabulous that we have moved on from the kinds of designs that were apparently appropriate in 1982. Perhaps it does indicate, in fact, people actually notice what the weather is like outside.
Other people who need to be thanked are individuals such as Ian Calley and Neville Potts, who must be recognised for this world-class plan; Grant O’Callohan, the certifier, Connell Wagner, Rider Hunt, the quantity surveyors; Brian and Root; and Ecosystems, the landscaping architects, must also be acknowledged.
Finally and equally importantly, I would like to acknowledge the quilters and ladies auxiliary who created a magnificent free standing quilt that depicts the hospital and will take pride of place in the entrance. The women who contributed to the quilt were: Helen Wardill, Anne Alderslade, Jenny Armour, Barbara Cho, Jane McMellon, Di Howard, Cath Nichols, Judy Anictomatis and Kay Roberts. If you are going to the Royal Darwin Hospital, I encourage you to look at this. It is a truly magnificent quilt which took a very long time to put together.
I am always concerned that someone is forgotten when you read out a list like this, so I would like to acknowledge the work of Territory companies such as Airductor, and staff such as Garry Lum in Pathology and Mark Palmer in X-ray; in fact, all staff at the hospital who have been involved with the redevelopment and with moving into the new extensions. I know that all Territorians will appreciate this new extension and thank the staff and all those people involved in the development for their hard work.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I touch on the person whom the member for Arafura, John Ah Kit, spoke about earlier. That was Joseph Daniel Pumeri McGinness. Recently I was in Cairns - actually on my honeymoon, and I will talk about that later. When the news came through that Mr McGinness had passed away, it was amazing how people, both Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal in Cairns, spoke about it. It was announced over indigenous radio there and through the media and people in general in the streets were talking about it. He was obviously greatly respected. When you look at what he accomplished in his life, you can only say that he was a great man - black, white, green or purple, he can only be judged by that.
He was born on 2 July 1914, at Finniss River, via Darwin, and died on 11 July 2003 in Cairns. His tribe was the Kungarakan, the paper bark people, and his totem was crocodile. I had the honour of attending his funeral service at the St Mary’s Football Club. It was amazing to see a large portion of local identifies in the Northern Territory stand up and speak on his behalf, and to describe the man and the mark that left on indigenous affairs throughout Australia.
The family of Joe McGinness began with mother Lucy, father, Stephen Joseph McGinness, siblings, Barney, Margaret, Jack (otherwise known as John), and Val (known as Valentine). His children were Elsie, John and Sandra, step-children Damon and Sam, grandchildren, Gwen, Christine, Dotty, Buddy, Amber, Tobin, Jamie, Daly and Nicholas. Step-grandchildren, Robin, Theodus, Rhys, Thisk, Ray Junior and Chantal. Great grandchildren, Nathan, PJ, Jaura, Matthew, Vicki, Duane, Dean, Tobin Junior and Trevor. Step-grandchildren, Brett. Great, great grandchildren, Nakiska.
As the honourable minister John Ah Kit said last night, Joseph Daniel McGinness left a profound mark on indigenous affairs. It is very interesting for me; I did not know the man intimately but I asked my uncle, Don Bonson, about him. I noticed from his memorial that he played a bit a football around the time of my grandfather. My uncle Don, my grandfather’s son, said that they were great mates, and they worked on many things in the early 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. He talked about many different affairs. I found it very interesting because I looked at some of the accomplishments that his family put into his list of honours.
In 1941-42, Joe was awarded the Northern Territory Football League Best and Fairest Award, which became the Nichols Medal. For anyone to win that medal in Northern Territory Football they were obviously an outstanding player and had the ability to play football in any time, in any place in the Territory. In 1942-45, Joe was awarded the Pacific Star War Medal and the Australian Service Medal. In 1988, Joe was awarded Aboriginal of the Year – Queensland North. In 1990, Joe was awarded the Order of Australia – General Division. In 1996, Joe was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Aboriginal Affairs – Tranby College. In 1997, Joe was awarded the Reconciliation Award for his dedication and inspirational leadership.
Despite these accolades, Joe’s greatest joy was his children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, nieces and nephews and all the other young people that he has nurtured, encouraged and guided over the years. In them he could always see hope for the future and the opportunity to build on the work of men and women who have prepared the ground for the future generations.
I often speak in public and on radio about the how it would feel to live in your own country and not be able to vote. One of the many things that I found very interesting about this great man’s life was his efforts in the 1967 referendum. He was obviously a very intelligent man, and a leader in his community - and not only in the indigenous community but throughout the Australia community. He was born in 1914 and the referendum was in 1967 – that is 53 years. So for 53 years of his life, this person was unable to vote in this country and was not considered a Australian citizen. There are people in this room who are younger than 53, so imagine you grew up in this country and were not seen as a citizen of Australia. But imagine the delight and the power that you would get out of being able to change that in your lifetime.
The greatest victory in Aboriginal affairs during his time was the 1967 referendum. The referendum resulted in the transfer of responsibility for Aboriginal welfare from states – which had been guilty of gross rights abuses - to the federal government and allowed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be counted in the census. Supported by more than 90% of the voters, indigenous peoples were excluded from voting on this referendum. The 1967 referendum was and remains the only national referendum conducted by the federal government that has resulted in this type of unified and overwhelming support for any proposal for constitutional change.
The power that Joe McGinness was able to get from that must have been a wonderful feeling, and also very proud moment to show that in this country, there is hope. As I said, 90% of the people voted that Aboriginal Australians should be given the right to vote and be considered Australian citizens. There is hope for the future of all Australians.
I would like to read a comment from Paddy Dodson, who acknowledged the generosity of the family who experience and feel his loss today:
- Be assured that his mark has been well made and he is appreciated most sincerely. We who have benefited
from it, thank you for your generosity in allowing us to be touched by his lifelong leadership, friendship
and solidarity.
Many of his relations, in particular Kathy Mills, is held in the same light in the eyes of many people in the Northern Territory. Her son, Robert Mills, was a major player in contributions to his funeral service, and Mondo Mills, June Mills and all the families, and all the extended family; the McGinness family was quite large in the Northern Territory, and earned a lot of respect over many years. I found it very fitting that Robert Mills gave the Kungarakan farewell and a song, Noni Manis, sung by the Mills family and others, and Old Buffaloes Never Die, sung by the Mills family and others. Joe McGinness, rest in peace.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in my remaining time, I would like to quickly speak about a great initiative by the Yilli Rreung Regional Council for Indigenous Youth on indigenous youth issues. They commissioned a consultant to survey indigenous urban youth in Darwin, Palmerston, Adelaide River, Belyuen, etcetera, and parents to find out what are the issues facing them. It has been given to a friend of mine, Stephen Torres Carne, with whom I studied law at the University of Western Australia. I wish him the best.
The idea is, broadly speaking, to survey or seek:
to determine the level of services or programs currently being provided for indigenous youth
by government and non-government youth services, organisations and agencies;
whether there are services or programs specific to indigenous youth by government and
non-government youth services and agencies;
the current participation levels of indigenous youth in services or programs administered
or facilitated by stakeholders, youth service organisations and agencies;
whether the current services or programs being offered or provided are culturally appropriate
for indigenous youth;
the stakeholders, youth organisations or agencies that are the most culturally appropriate to
deliver services to programs and provide outcomes for indigenous youth;
the level of interest from stakeholders, youth organisations and agencies to enter into or begin
discussions in regard to funded or non-funded participation agreements where no such participation
exists or, where they do exist, the level of interest to enter into or discuss additional funded or
non-funded partnership agreements;
the current funding and manpower capacity of stakeholders and youth organisations to provide services
or programs for indigenous youth where those services or programs are non existent or, in the case
where they are existent, to provide additional services or programs;
the extent to which funds appropriate to youth services, organisations or agencies to provide services
or programs to indigenous youth are being utilised; and
the overall policy of stakeholders and youth services, organisations and agencies towards indigenous
youth.
I encourage all ministers of the Northern Territory Labor government to assist Stephen Torres Carne on behalf of the Yilli Rreung Regional Council and indigenous youth. I believe he has written to all ministers, and I look forward to a positive response.
I now report on what has been happening in the Ludmilla area. One of the big projects has been the Bagot beautification, and a number of other initiatives this government has put into place and I, as a local member, have been pushing. For around 20 years there has been no large capital works effort put into the Bagot Community. They have been operating in isolation. How they have been surviving over the last 20 years is anyone’s guess. A number of dedicated workers there put in a large effort to change the environment for both the residents of Bagot Community and outside residents of the Ludmilla suburb.
Special thanks go to Dawn Adams, Natalie Heywood, Helen Fejo-Frith, Darryl Cooktown, the president, Jamie Dalles, who has just become the new community development officer there under a program run by Jack Ah Kit’s ministerial office, and I think he will be a fantastic addition to galvanising the community to access resources from the NT government, Commonwealth government and ATSIC, and also mobilise them as a community to positively improve their lives.
I thank Ian Fraser, Robyn Leslie and Carole Miller for attending a Ludmilla residents and Bagot residents meeting. Around 35 residents attended, with about 50 children. We offered sausages and drinks. We talked about issues in the area, traffic lighting, the Bagot fenceline, residents’ noise and other issues of interest, which I will be following up and, in particular, issues to do with noise from the airport. I thank those Lyons Ward aldermen for attending. They contributed greatly to the meeting and they have offered their services, and I have offered mine in partnership to work on dealing with Ludmilla issues, and that will be fantastic for the area.
I would also like to mention the E-Cruz operating in my electorate. PJ, who runs the show and can be contacted on 8927 4100, had me come down and run a session for the Millner and Nightcliff youth. We had about 35 students attend, along with about 15 adults. We took them to Freshwater/Rapid Creek, the saltwater near the entrance, and we showed them how to cast a net, catch fish, bait a hook, how to show respect for the country there and gave them an option away from, I suppose, the indoor activities, to do some outdoor activities. There was a great mixture of local Territorians. It is a fantastic initiative. I will definitely be recommending to all ministers that they implement it across Darwin. It costs $3 a session. Unfortunately, we picked a bad time for tides, but anyone seeing me with kids – I am the ‘King of the Kids’ – and we managed to entertain them very well. The parents were very satisfied.
I also mention the appointment at Radio Larrakia of Larry Morgan and Billy T as station manager and program manager. Radio Larrakia is a fantastic service for the whole of the Northern Territory.
Dr TOYNE (Stuart): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank three public servants who have recently retired from the Department of Corporate and Information Services.
Mr Glyn Rhys-Jones retired on 27 June 2003 after 41 years of service in the Northern Territory Public Service. Glyn joined the Commonwealth Public Service in November 1961 and spent his first year in Alice Springs. Glyn has held several senior positions in a number of agencies, and his contributions to the regions, particularly Tennant Creek and Katherine, is especially acknowledged. Glyn is one of the longest serving public servants in the Territory, and his contribution to the Territory public sector was recognised when he was awarded the Public Service Medal in the 1999 Australia Day honours.
Glyn has been the director of the Northern Territory property management since 1996, and transferred to DCIS with that business unit in 2001. He will be certainly missed by all of his colleagues. I wish Glyn all the best for a long and happy retirement. I personally acknowledge the dealings I had with Glyn in the first days of me taking on the ministry for DCIS, and his competence and professionalism stood out.
Mrs Irene Elva Larkin retired on 4 July 2003, after 35 years in the Northern Territory Public Service. Irene joined the Commonwealth Public Service in August 1968 as an administrative officer with the Department of Health. She worked in positions in the Darwin Hospital and the Darwin Dental Clinic until December 1974, when she was evacuated to Brisbane following Cyclone Tracy.
Irene returned to Darwin in 1975 and continued to work with the Department of Health, transferring to Payroll. Irene commenced with DCIS upon its formation in 1988, and assisted employees involved in the transition. She has always provided an excellent service from the Payroll Unit at the Casuarina Regional Office. I wish Irene a healthy and happy retirement.
Mr John Mighall retired on the 18 July 2003 after 34 years in the NTPS. John joined the Commonwealth Public Service on the 17 June 1969 as a motor mechanic with the Department of Construction at the 2 Mile plant workshops. On transfer to the NTPS, John held positions of Metal Trades Foreman and Plant Inspector. In 1989, John was promoted to the position of Technical Officer within NT Fleet and, in January 2002, transferred from the Department of Transport and Works to DCIS with the NT Fleet Operations.
John assisted in developing the section into a multiskilled environment with a particularly high quality level of customer service. The technical knowledge and expertise that he has acquired over a long and distinguished career has been a great asset to the public sector and will be sorely missed. His dedication, commitment and easy-going sense of humour will also be missed by his colleagues and clients. I wish John a long, healthy and happy retirement.
We wish these public servants all the best on their retirement. I acknowledge in this House the value of work they have performed for the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory government.
Moving to the Justice Portfolio I pay tribute to Paul Sitzler on his retirement from the Parole Board. Paul was first appointed to the Parole Board on the 18 July 1997 and served continuously until the appointment expired on the 17 July 2003. Paul did not wish to renew his appointment.
Paul came to the Territory in 1953 and worked for building contractors in Aboriginal communities until 1957, when he established his own building company, P & EW Sitzler, in partnership with his brother. The company concentrated on remote area building contracts, building houses in Alice Springs, Areyonga, Yuendumu and Hermannsburg.
In 1967, Sitzler Bros Pty Ltd was established. This company undertook major works and built many landmark buildings and facilities around the Territory, including the Catholic Church, Araluen Centre, Government Centre and the Ford Plaza in Alice Springs, the Katherine and Casuarina Swimming Pools, the Christchurch Cathedral and the Saville Park Suites in Darwin.
Paul lived in Alice Springs from 1956 until June 2002 with his wife Mina. They raised their three children in the town. The family made a significant business and community contribution to the Northern Territory. Paul is a member of the Order of Australia and is a long-term Rotarian, having been awarded a Paul Harris Fellowship by that organisation.
Paul brought a practical community perspective to the Parole Board deliberations, which is grounded in his in-depth knowledge of the Centralian communities and issues, and was a highly valued member of the Parole Board. In June 2002, Paul and Mina moved to Adelaide, although he spends a significant amount of time in Alice Springs where he has continuing business interests.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, after months of planning and rigorous training, a group of people from Nhulunbuy are paddling surf skis 850 km across the Top End from Nhulunbuy to Darwin as I speak. They will run 250 km from Darwin to Jabiru, and the final group will cycle mountain bikes 800 km across Arnhem Land from Jabiru back to Nhulunbuy. Part of their endeavour is to raise $150 000 to assist in the purchase of vital helicopter rescue equipment that will provide a rescue service to Gove and remote communities across the region. I am also pleased to report that the new helicopter has arrived at Laynha Air at Gove, replacing the one involved in the tragic accident near Doindji last year.
Coordinated by Doug Grimmond, the Site Manager at Alcan Gove, he is accompanied by colleagues, Peter White, Martin Gunda, Alan Cross, and will be joined by surf life saving legends, Trevor Hendy and Grant Kenny. The paddlers will be accompanied by a flotilla of four support vessels, and the paddlers will rotate in pairs, an hour at a time. A reception will be held in Darwin on their arrival on 23 August.
The run is coordinated by Lance Thomas. He will be joined by his wife, Cheryl, Damon Bishop and Ian Whish-Wilson, Tom King, Don Appleford and Gwyn Bowen. They will run in relay running during the night and expect to arrive in Jabiru within 24 hours.
The final leg with the mountain bike riders will set off from Jabiru on 25 August across the ‘Top Track’ and it is coordinate by Claude Rivard, and includes Heather Roach, Peter Haynes, Paul Mastin, Anthony White, Des O’Sullivan, Jon Seem, Michael Jones, Micah Van Oostrum and Tom Ovcaric. They will attempt to cover about 130 km a day and will be supported by a team of five vehicles.
I look forward to welcoming them all back into Gove on the Sunday, 31 August at Hindle Oval. The paddle leg is well in progress as I speak and I wish the whole team good luck, a safe journey and congratulations an a very well coordinated event.
Twelve-year-old Stephen Jarvis from Nhulunbuy competed in an international dance competition in the USA and has been crowned the International Prince of Dance of Atlantic City, followed by the International Prince of Dance of the United States of America. Performing in front of five judges at the national event, Stephen received seven gold medals, a high silver award, and was also honoured with two special judges awards. In awarding Stephen the prize title of International Prince of Dance, the judges said that Stephen had an enormous future in the dance world and shows great potential. My congratulations to Stephen and to his family, to his mum and dad, Lyn and Norm, for this great achievement.
The Yalu Centre CD-ROM launch at Galiwinku took place recently. A strong group of women at Galiwinku suggest there has been considerable interest but little investigation of the relationship between education and health for indigenous people. They discussed their concerns and came up with the Yalu concept. The aim of the project was to provide an opportunity for Aboriginal people to express their views on the connections between health and education, articulate their own theories and formulate them for action. The process of consultation and feedback in the community was continuous and only possible due to the involvement of community-based researchers, often unpaid for their commitment to the task.
With support from various agencies, they have developed the Yalu concept, a community nurturing or learning centre based on Yolngu management structures to strengthen Yolngu systems, practices and knowledge related to health. I congratulate Elaine Maypilama, Anne Lowell, and Dianne Biritjalawuy and their team for this important initiative at Galiwinku, and in ‘exploring the connections’ look forward to further developments in approaching contemporary community health from the Yolngu traditional perspective. The CD-ROM launch took place at Galiwinku on Wednesday, 16 July.
Another very successful Garma festival was held from Thursday, 7 August through to Tuesday evening, 12 August 2003 at Gulkula. The focus this year was on visual arts with a record number of visitors to the festival. The Chief Minister opened the festival on Friday afternoon and announced a $3.2m indigenous arts strategy, Building Strong Arts Business, for Yolngu people of the Northern Territory. My thanks to Raymattja Marika for her translation into the local language as the Chief Minister launched the policy. We have a very rich, artistic and cultural heritage in Eastern Arnhem Land and the work of our artists is vital to the history, language and identify of our Yolngu people.
The Yothu Yindi Foundation is to be congratulated on another very successful festival. Our government is committed to working with the indigenous communities, and it was fitting that an announcement of a grant to assist the foundation in driving their indigenous enterprise program is to be made in partnership with the Indigenous Arts Strategy.
A long time resident of Nhulunbuy, Carol Ward arrived in Gove 24 years ago to work in Aboriginal Health Services in the Gove Region. Carol was the first Aboriginal health tutor and set about with the challenge of setting up quality health care programs. During Carol’s 24 years of service she has had many different titles and responsibilities. Some of these have included Aboriginal Health Worker Tutor, Regional Matron, Regional Nursing Officer, Director of Nursing – Community Care, Community Health Manager, and more recently Executive Director of Nursing for East Arnhem District. I wish Carol and her husband, Les, well as they make their home in Atherton.
Stephen Castelli was rewarded by the Rotary Club of Nhulunbuy with Rotary International’s highest award, a Paul Harris Fellowship for his continuous years of outstanding local and international community service. Stephen is an outstanding example of a community-minded individual. He has been involved in the Nhulunbuy Amateur Swimming Club, and the Gove Peninsula Surf Life Saving Club as an active member. He was instrumental in encouraging the formation of Nhulunbuy’s town band. He is involved in junior soccer, taking on the role of coach, committee member and referee.
Within Rotary, Stephen has also exemplified commitment to the community and embraced the ideals of Rotary in all activities undertaken. Stephen and his family have hosted exchange students from overseas on a regular basis. Congratulations to Stephen. He has contributed greatly to the growth and development of our community and it is a fitting recognition.
The Yirrkala CEC Big Band has been an excellent initiative of the Yirrkala Community School. The band consists of secondary age students who must attend school regularly to remain in the group. A year ago, the Chancellor of Melbourne University saw the band perform at Garma in 2002 and invited them to Melbourne to perform for three schools: McKinnon Secondary College, Trinity Grammar School and Methodist Ladies College. They were accommodated at International House and were able to see an AFL match – Sydney v Carlton - visit the Melbourne Aquarium, art gallery, Victoria Markets, Melbourne University and have a ride on a tram. They all enjoyed the ‘down south’ experience greatly and have returned to Gove with more enthusiasm and confidence to progress further with their musical talents. I encourage and congratulate their efforts in maintaining a sound education in partnership with their very popular band activities.
I had the good fortune, on Friday lunch time during a visit to the school, to hear them perform. They presented me with a video of their performances in Melbourne. Also present on that day was the school band from Gapuwiyak. Music is one of those areas that is really taking off as a way of encouraging and continuing the engagement of youth into their teens in education. We should do everything we can to continue to support it.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016