2004-02-17
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Welcome, honourable members, to the start of the 2004 parliamentary year. I place on record my thanks to the Chung Wah Society for the blessing of the Chamber. Let us hope it will be a good year.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from the Administrator Message No. 18, notifying assent to bills passed in the October and November 2003 sittings.
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to Petitions No 44 and No 48 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
Petition No 48
Protection of the Daly River
Date Presented: 25 November 2003
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Chief Minister
Date response due: 18 May 2004
Date response received: 23 December 2003
Date response presented: 17 February 2004
Response:
Integrated Regional Land Use Plan has been completed.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I advise honourable members that on 15 December 2003, His Honour the Administrator made the following appointments of ministers of the Northern Territory:
The member for Wanguri will continue to fill the role of Leader of Government Business, and the member for Karama will continue as Government Whip.
I take this opportunity to note that the member for Arafura, in her role as minister assisting me on Young Territorians, Women’s Policy and Senior Territorians, will be responsible for questions without notice and written questions from members of this House where those questions relate to the portfolio areas of youth, women or seniors.
Madam Speaker, I table a copy of the Administrative Arrangements order as at 21 January 2004.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, last week I announced several changes to the shadow cabinet because of the inclusion of the member for Brennan on the front bench of the opposition. I am pleased to inform the House that the member for Brennan has taken on the shadow responsibilities of defence matters and infrastructure and planning. His inclusion has meant that a number of other changes were made to the responsibilities of other shadow ministers. I seek leave to table the full list.
Leave granted.
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Arafura, Ms Scrymgour, be discharged from the Sessional Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community, and the member for Nightcliff, Mrs Aagaard, be appointed to serve on the committee in her stead. I also advise that the member for Nightcliff will be the government’s nominee for the position of Chair of this committee.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): I further move that the member for Arafura, Ms Scrymgour, be discharged from service on the Subordinate Legislation and Tabled Papers Committee, and the member for Nightcliff, Mrs Aagaard, be appointed in her stead.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Goyder, Mr Maley, be discharged from the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community, and the member for Katherine, Mrs Miller, be appointed to that committee in his place.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide an update to the House on the review of the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Scheme, or LAMSS, as it is generally known. As honourable members will be aware, I have consistently advocated that superannuation arrangements for parliamentarians should not be out of line with the arrangements generally available to the community, and took that commitment to the last election.
In February 2002, I announced a review of LAMSS would be undertaken. Terms of reference were tabled in the Assembly in May of the same year. Ken Clarke, the former Under Treasurer, carried out the review and presented his report to my government in November 2002.
The objective of the review of the scheme was to provide for the government’s consideration options for a revised benefit structure for members of this House that will result in reduced costs for Territory taxpayers, is comparable with standards in other jurisdictions, takes into account national policies on superannuation and, very importantly, has regard to community expectations.
Members of the Legislative Assembly, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Independent members were consulted during the review. Matters considered included the Actuarial Review of 30 June 2001; the benefits and levels of the scheme including a comparison of parliamentary schemes in other jurisdictions; options for benefit design including comparisons of pension and lump sum schemes; and the extent to which a changed benefit structure could be applied to existing and future members and, in doing so, the implications for superannuation entitlements.
Public submissions were called during the review. However, only one submission was received. The time frame envisaged when the review commenced was so that new arrangements could be in place prior to the commencement of the next parliament following the general election scheduled for 2005. That time frame was set to allow analysis of the issues raised in the LAMSS review, some of which are particularly complex, and for members to have the opportunity to provide input into consideration of changes to LAMSS or the development of new arrangements.
It is important to note that we in the Territory parliament have embarked on an orderly process of reviewing our superannuation entitlements and we will continue in that way according to the planned time frame.
Yesterday the LAMSS trustees met under the chairmanship of Madam Speaker and copies of the LAMSS Review were provided to all members of this Assembly. The trustees agreed that I would invite comment from members on future arrangements for both existing and new members, and I expect to receive those comments within a month. The government’s intention is to introduce legislation in the second half of this calendar year in support of new superannuation arrangements.
To assist members in their analysis of the review, the Under Treasurer and the Commissioner of Superannuation will be available for briefings and discussion on issues raised in the review. I also plan to table the review report next week after members have had the opportunity to review the report.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, to inform the House of movement at the station in regards to this matter is extraordinary when we had these events put in train from 2001, prior to their arrival on the government benches. To then set about setting up a review which would take on the issues that you have already outlined and now, to satisfy your political agenda, you are endeavouring to have this strung out so it still fits in to the timetable that you always had in mind is to grandstand once again before the Territory community with an initiative of your own creation to gain maximum benefit at the next Territory election.
If it was not for your federal leader who was able to make a decision in a very short period of time and for the Prime Minister to come out and make a very clear and definitive statement in a very short period of time, we would probably have silence on this matter to this day, and you would be able to maximise your political benefits by having this spun out and presented and re-presented at the next Territory election.
So, bring it on. Get a clear view on this as soon as you possibly can because you have had a fair time to have a look at this. We look forward to having a clear view from the Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, in response, we went to the last election saying we would bring superannuation for parliamentarians in line with community expectations. I make the point that the then government did not make any such commitment. We made a clear commitment that it would be in place by the time of the next election and, as I indicated, we started the review in 2002. The opposition was consulted, Independent members were consulted and, as I have said publicly, we have many priorities in government; this one was moving along.
In line with national activity on this issue, we have brought it forward. The plans were to do it in an orderly and sensible way, and this is what we are doing. I hope that every member of this House is very clear about community expectation on parliamentarians’ superannuation, because this is the expectation we will meet. However, we will do it in a sensible and orderly way, and I hope I have support from the 25 members in here in doing that.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to report to the House on the progress of fulfilling the government’s election promise of 100 additional teachers over this term. Sixty positions have been fully funded to date, and the balance of 40 will be funded in the 2004-05 budget. All of the positions have been provided above formula to ensure the government’s statement that 100 extra teachers would be provided will have been adhered to. Of the first 20 employed in 2001-02, 11 went to remote communities for the specific purpose of providing special education support. They were Borroloola, Maningrida, Shepherdson College, Yuendumu, Batchelor, Ngukurr, Ti Tree, Yulara/Mutitjulu, Yirrkala, Gunbalunya and Angurugu. This government provided special education support to remote communities for the first time and, as minister, I am proud of that.
Special education positions were also placed at three urban schools: Casuarina Street Primary, Bakewell and Woodroffe Primary. Special education teachers were also allocated to each of the five group schools in the Arnhem cluster. In 2002-03, 20 positions were allocated to a range of areas in need of support. Three were deployed to a newly-formed capability development unit, on which I have received excellent feedback from schools within my electorate utilising that service.
The need for alternative education programs for students at risk has been met with the allocation of five teachers to the program based in Palmerston and serving the students of both Palmerston and the northern suburbs of Darwin. The five group schools, comprised of more than more than 60 small schools from all over the Territory, each received an assistant principal to provide logistical curriculum support to a large proportion of the Territory’s remote indigenous students. A remote education resource development project to catch the Alice Springs group schools was also allocated two teachers.
In 2003-04, 20 additional teachers will be deployed, with 10 specifically to augment the English as a Second Language general support program. Of the remaining 10, four positions are to develop teaching and learning using information technology within LATIS, Learning and Technology in Schools; two positions are to research the various approaches to literacy in classrooms with a view to identifying evidence-based methodologies to advance student learning; one position to research effective education interventions and to share information on best practice; and one position to manage the range of alternative provision sites in Alice Springs. The final two will be allocated to relief teacher pools in regional and remote centres where the lack of availability of relief teachers limits opportunities for teachers’ professional development and does impact on the quality and consistency of students’ education.
Forty positions will be allocated through 2004-05 to complete the roll-out of 100 additional teachers. The most effective employment of these is yet to be determined, however, as minister, I am becoming increasingly aware of the need to address behaviour management issues in schools. The Australian Education Union identifies behaviour management as the second main concern of Territory teachers. Parents have also raised this with me as an issue in need of focussed effort. Ten teachers will be dedicated to work on behaviour management in Northern Territory schools with a view to increasing schools’ capacity to effectively address behaviour management issues.
The government’s decision to provide an additional 100 teachers has boosted the capacity of the department to deliver quality outcomes across a range of areas in need of support right across the Territory. This government values education. We place much importance on supporting our young people and we will continue to grow and improve the quality of education services in the Territory.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the staff in the recruitment area of the department for having done so well this year to ensure that our schools have started with an almost full complement of teachers. I believe we were some 11 short, however, compared to other years this has been a remarkable year and congratulations to those people. I also marvel at the minister saying that over the next year, in 2004-05, he is going to bring in 40 new teachers. This is a big call. He has had three years and he only has 60%. And in the last year of term, he is going to bring in another 40% to get the complement. I do not know where he is going to get them from, but I will wait cautiously and watch what he does.
One of the most important things about our teaching cohort is that they have been waiting for a long time for the review into secondary education. That has been sitting around - probably under the minister’s lap or wherever. We have not seen hide nor hair of that report. It has been a long while coming and I believe the minister has something to hide there. From what I have heard from people who have had a hand in it, it is going to cost this government a whole heap of money and they are not prepared to do it.
Therefore, minister, if you have this report sitting there collecting dust, please show us so that we can give you good, credible and constructive criticism on it. There is no point hiding that report behind your continued delays, as you have with all things you have done under this government. Again, I congratulate the improvement in staffing numbers done this year. It has been a remarkable achievement, and I look forward to continuing progress in this regard.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow minister for his genuine comments in relation to start of the year: just nine vacancies on day one, right across the system of 2100 teachers - a star comparison to the previous years where we had 30-odd or 40 last year and similar the year before. It was a great focussed effort this year, and my congratulations and commendations to the officers of the department involved in that.
In relation to the secondary review, there is a protocol that when the government undertakes reviews of any sort of nature, Cabinet sees it first. It has not been to Cabinet yet; DEET has been preparing the Cabinet submission on the recommendations involved in the report. Once it goes to Cabinet, Cabinet will take it forward and there will be extensive and comprehensive community engagement on all of the recommendations within that report - particularly around the major issues going to a structure of delivery of secondary education in the Northern Territory. It is nothing to do with the amount of the resources; we will actually be resourcing it this year. However, we are committed to a very comprehensive round of community engagement and consultation.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, in December last year I had the honour of representing the Northern Territory on official visits, as Minister for Sport and Recreation, to Sri Lanka and Vietnam. I was accompanied by Executive Director of Sport and Recreation, Mr Phillip Leslie, ministerial advisor, Mr Chandra Seneviratne.
Sri Lanka, as you know, are to be special guest in the Northern Territory later this year, when its national cricket side comes to Darwin to play against the Chief Minister’s XI in June, and an historic test in Northern Australia against Australia on the 1 July.
The visit to Sri Lanka was to discuss the forthcoming test series between Australia and Sri Lanka, as well as to discuss the Arafura Games. I met first with Mr Johnston Fernando, MP, Minister for Youth Affairs and Sports. At this meeting, I was able to describe the improvements made to Marrara Oval to accommodate the Bangladesh series in 2003, and spoke of the way of the Darwin community had embraced international cricket. Minister Fernando was assured that the Sri Lankan team would receive a warm welcome from all Territorians - a sentiment I am sure that all of us here would endorse.
I also provided information regarding the Arafura Games to be held in 2005. Minister Fernando and his senior officials expressed considerable interest in Sri Lanka attending the games for the first time since 1999. In fact, I recall his very words: ‘You have come all this way to visit us, and we are certainly pleased to look at having a delegation attend the Arafura Games in May 2005’.
I held a subsequent meeting with the Chief Executive of Sri Lanka Cricket, and ex-Sri Lankan cricket captain, Mr Anura Tennekoon. This meeting discussed Darwin as a venue and the forthcoming test series. Mr Tennekoon advised that a senior official from Sri Lanka Cricket would visit Darwin to inspect the facilities in early 2004. The board offices are at the Singhalese Sports Club ground, which was being prepared for the third test against England to start this weekend.
A welcome reception was held at Australia House in Colombo, hosted by the Deputy High Commissioner for Australia, Ms Kate Logan. It was attended by Minister Fernando, Sri Lanka cricket officials and prominent dignitaries, along with some Australian expatriates. At the reception, I spoke about preparations for the upcoming series.
My visit to Vietnam was at the invitation of Mr Nguyen Danh Thai, Minster of Sports and Physical Culture of Vietnam, and Chairman of the 22nd South-East Asian Games Organising Committee. The South East Asian Games is a regional sporting games held every second year in south-east Asia. Vietnam was the host country, with competitions split between Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City as well as a small number of regional venues. The 2001 Games were held in Kuala Lumpur and the participating countries are generally those that also participate in the Arafura Games. They are: Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Cambodia, Brunei, Laos, Myanmar and East Timor. The sports on offer vary slightly at each games but typically include shooting, sepaktakraw, swimming, cycling, gymnastics, athletics, soccer, tennis, archery, karate, etcetera. In total there are 442 medals in 32 sports. As key sporting officials from the region attend the games it is important for the Territory to be represented and remind respective delegations about the Arafura Games.
The opening ceremony was held at the new purpose-built My Dinh National Stadium in Hanoi, which has capacity for 40 000 people. As well as the march past of 3775 participating athletes, there was a lighting of the torch and a cultural performance. A key aspect of a wonderful opening ceremony was the use of dancers, music and a laser light display. The stadium was also the venue for the athletics competition and some soccer games. I attended a meeting hosted by the Prime Minister of Vietnam, Mr Phan Van Khai. All in all, the meetings in both Hanoi and in Colombo, Sri Lanka, went really well. We expect to have delegations visit.
Madam Speaker, the cost of the journey for myself, Mr Leslie and Mr Seneviratne was approximately $20 750, including $18 000 approximately in air fares and $2270-odd in accommodation.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, it is good to see the minister being proactive - certainly in the area of cricket. No doubt there is little resistance from this side of the House that it was an historical event, well received by many Territorians, last year, when international cricket came to Darwin. I went to the welcoming dinner at the Aviation Museum, the fundraiser. I did not see the minister there; perhaps he had another engagement.
However, the real concern is this: we have heard about the emphasis on promoting cricket; we have heard about this overseas trip costing in the order of $20 000. Yet, we do not see any money spent at Freds Pass. There are 17 000 rural taxpayers and not one cent from this Martin Labor government was spent at Freds Pass. There are hundreds and hundreds of kids who go there every weekend. We have soccer, polocrosse, and rugby, yet this government does not see fit to support the efforts of those people.
Sport and recreation is fundamental to the Territory lifestyle, but the Martin Labor government simply spends all its time obsessed with things like gay law reform and swimming pool fencing and not supporting Territory teams.
Madam Speaker, it is well known that this government will not even supply sports ambassadors, kids, and teams representing the Territory interstate with Territory flags. They cannot supply any logistical support for these teams and yet they have the audacity to stand up here and wax lyrical about the tens of thousands of dollars they spend on overseas trips promoting cricket.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, what a hypocritical response from the sport and recreation opposition spokesperson. I certainly would hate to imagine if the CLP won government at the next election and you were to be the minister for Sport and Recreation, as you would find very little time to attend most of the events because you would be busy doing some other work.
However, I have been working with the Freds Pass trustee, with the board, and my colleague, when he was the minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, was able to offer up a shed that is going to be removed. I am working with people from that board, Andrew Blackadder and Bob Shewring, trying to see if the council would support some funds being diverted from the $1m we committed to a swimming pool to allow that shed to be erected. We have continually provided assistance from time to time to the Freds Pass trustees and we have more in the sport and recreation field other than your electorate.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I rise today to report on the Northern Territory’s prawn farming industry and to highlight a significant issue confronting industry development.
The Northern Territory’s prawn farming industry has a bright future, with two major prawn farms to come on stream shortly. The industry has grown considerably, with 27 hectares of prawn ponds constructed near Berry Springs last year, which brings the total area of ponds available for prawn culture in Territory to 75 hectares. In 2004, a further 60 hectares of ponds are planned near Ceylon Point in Bynoe Harbour.
Currently, the Northern Territory’s prawn farming industry relies on stocking a large number of juveniles imported from Queensland and Western Australia. Importation of juveniles exposes our prawn farms to the risk of bringing in non-endemic disease. Farms in Queensland usually get the first option to any stock and our local prawn farmers tell us that they are at the end of the queue, often receiving poor quality juvenile prawns. A key hurdle to a local hatchery supplying grow-out stock is sourcing broodstock.
The Northern Prawn Fishery, one of the largest prawn fisheries in the world, is managed by the Commonwealth under arrangements negotiated through the Offshore Constitutional Settlement. My department has been negotiating with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority over a long time about a permit for the trial collection of black tiger broodstock prawns for a period of one year.
Under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement Agreement that was signed in 1995, the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory agreed that prawn farmers in the Territory should be able to collect their own broodstock. Despite this, the conditions under which the Commonwealth permit has been issued means that local farmers must engage Northern Prawn Fisheries trawlers to do the collection rather than collecting their own breeding stock, as all other fish farmers in the Territory can. This meant that some prawn farmers in the Territory have had to pay more than $7000 for each individual broodstock prawn - a very expensive prawn!
I have now instructed my department to go back to AFMA to negotiate for our farmers to have more reasonable access to black tiger prawn broodstock. Reasonable access would allow the farmers to employ the services of specialist, smaller vessels to dedicated broodstock collecting and handling equipment, thus making the whole process more efficient and cost effective. The small number of broodstock prawns required will not pose a threat to sustainability of black tiger prawns nor the commercial prawn species taken in the fishery. Access to prawn broodstock would be of enormous benefit to the growth and future of all prawn farmers in the Territory.
Suntay Aquaculture is a new Darwin company that has entered into a joint venture with Charles Darwin University. The joint venture has the aim of establishing sustainable black tiger prawn hatchery technology in the Northern Territory using disease-free local broodstock. I recently had the pleasure of visiting the facilities at the university and was able to see first-hand the level of investment, commitment and dedication being applied to this project.
This company, in collaboration with CDU, has successfully bred black tiger prawns from local broodstock. Initial disease testing of the prawns had been very positive, with the first batches of disease-free juvenile prawns now being produced. I was impressed with the dedication and commitment of the company, together with university staff, in successfully breeding local prawns.
This is a very exciting chapter for the emerging prawn farming industry here in the Territory. We have seen the greatest level of investment ever in constructing prawn grow-out facilities and we have the university and Suntay Aquaculture now producing disease-free local stocks.
All going well and, if all prawn farms are stocked in 2004-05, production of more than 1000 tonnes of prawns worth over $10m at the farm gate is well within the industry’s reach.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, a very important industry and one that might be in its juvenile stages in its own right but, certainly, huge potential in the Northern Territory, particularly in the Top End of the Northern Territory, to develop world class prawn farms and, certainly, aquaculture in general.
On that point, obviously land is going to be an issue, and that is something the former Lands minister would know about. It is very hard to find - even with all the land, even in negotiations with Aboriginal owners - the right portion of land to establish prawn farms that need certain mixes of water, high ground and so on.
My congratulations also to Suntay Aquaculture for having the confidence to invest in the Northern Territory with their Ceylon Point farm. This is a fantastic development bringing cutting edge, worldwide, leading edge technology to the Northern Territory. As the minister has pointed out, the establishment of the hatchery developed from a wild catch of tiger prawns off our coast. In the joint venture with the Charles Darwin University they not only will supply themselves when they start construction later this year, but they are also now being inundated with inquiries from other prawn farmers, both here in the Territory and in southern states, because they have produced progeny that is disease free. There have been major issues in the past with importing progeny from other states into the Territory where those progeny have died with a very substantial cost to people like Adam Bonney and Tracker Tilmouth and others.
Congratulations to all of those people who are investing in the Territory, particularly Suntay Aquaculture, and I wish them well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I concur with the previous speaker. The prawn industry is a developing industry. However, I would like to make note that Litchfield Shire has a reasonably large number of prawn farms. It also has a history of, I suppose, a poor siting of prawn farms, as people would remember, in the Shoal Bay area.
I believe there are issues that need to be continually monitored. One is certainly the quarantine of introducing disease, and there was that scare not so long back with the white virus that they thought had been introduced through the aquaculture farm at Channel Island. There is also the issue of pollution, that is, trying to reduce the amount of water that is put back into the harbour. I know there were certainly moves to try to reduce that to nil. That is something we should continually monitor. Also, the siting of existing prawn farms that they do not get too close to mangroves., not only because of the sulphate muds, but you do give some protection of the mangroves from development in general.
I believe it is a great industry, however it is one that, if we believe that it will be a sustainable industry into the future, we must be careful how we plan it.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments. I agree with them. It is a very important emerging industry for the Territory. I would also like to congratulate Emilio Suntay and the CDU. He has shown confidence in the Territory in investing a significant amount of money to establish his closed circuit prawn farm, with nearly zero emissions, far away from mangroves in the Bynoe Harbour area. I was very pleased to facilitate that land availability for Emilio. My colleague, the member for Johnston, is working with Emilio for the provision of roads and power.
It is a very important industry. I am informed that they have made significant advances in breeding local stock at the CDU – the CSIRO has managed to breed prawns once a year - they have managed to do it four times a year, which is a significant benefit for the prawn farms.
Other people are now coming to the government with proposals for a red claw farm, and we will be very keen to see this kind of industry coming to the Territory.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Madam SPEAKER: Government Business of the Day. Minister for Local Government.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to present a bill without notice relating to the safety of swimming pools.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
A member: Come on.
A member: The safety of swimming pools …
Madam SPEAKER: I will say that again. Is leave granted?
Members: Aye.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, I present a bill entitled Swimming Pool Safety Bill 2004 (Serial 206).
Bill read a first time.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I wish to advise that it is my intention to give notice later today to suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent the bill being passed through all stages at this sittings.
A member interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry, but I just wanted to pick up on exactly what the minister is asking for. Is he putting a motion that the bill now be read a second time?
Madam SPEAKER: He has.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I wish to speak to that motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, the minister has first right to speak to the motion.
Mr ELFERINK: So, can I just get …
Mr Ah Kit: Madam Speaker, can I …
Madam SPEAKER: Just wait a minute!
Mr ELFERINK: Can I get some clarification on this particular issue, please, Madam Speaker? So he is putting the motion that the bill now be read a second time?
Madam SPEAKER: That is right.
Mr ELFERINK: And he is now going to argue the reasons why the bill be read a second time?
Madam SPEAKER: He is now going to give his second reading speech, as is the custom.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, as I understand it, he has walked in here and simply told us that he is going to give notice. He has asked for no motion; he has simply walked in here to give notice. He is telling us that he is going to bring on a speech …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Let me clarify what has just occurred.
Mr ELFERINK: And I was on my feet to talk to that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, the minister sought leave - and I even said that twice - to present a bill without notice. Then he presented the bill, and now he is doing what normally occurs doing a second …
Mr Elferink: But, Madam Speaker, just as a matter of …
Madam SPEAKER: Do not interrupt when I am speaking, thank you.
Mr Kiely: Throw him out, he does it all the time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Now he has moved that the bill be now read a second time. That is the sequence of events that just occurred.
Mr ELFERINK: All right. Madam Speaker, I was on my feet when he sought leave to speak to his motion, to speak to that issue. Am I denied the right to speak to it?
Madam SPEAKER: The minister had the floor.
Mr Stirling: You missed the call.
Mr ELFERINK: I did not miss the call; that is the point. I was on my feet.
Madam SPEAKER: But the minister had the floor and he had the call.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sure the reason for the member for Macdonell’s comments is that it is quite unusual for a bill to move straight to a second reading. Normally, notice has been given that the bill will move to a second reading stage. Even on urgency that normally happens on the second day, or after 24 hours of giving notice. The confusion is, do we now understand that there is a new procedure, which I believe is in contravention of standing orders, whereby no 24 hours notice is given and the minister is asking the House to accept the fact that he can move directly to his second reading speech? If that is the case, we would like to debate that motion.
Madam SPEAKER: May I just say that I purposely said: ‘Is leave granted’ twice, to get the approval of the Chamber, and it was given. I am not quite sure - could the member for Brennan explain to me exactly what you are saying?
Mr BURKE: Simply, in normal procedure, Madam Speaker, we would accept the fact that notice is given of the bill, because there would be 24 hours before the second reading speech would be given. That is what I understood was the process this morning. We now find that, within a minute, the minister is going to move into his second reading speech. That is quite unusual in this Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: That is right.
Mr BURKE: Therefore, I would suggest that that alone should be a subject of debate.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, I understand exactly what the member for Brennan is saying, and he is right. He is right; normally we would give notice one day, introduce the bill the next. Given that we will be endeavoring to pass this bill on urgency through all stages of this sitting, it is simply to allow the opposition and anyone else 24 hours more notice of the bill than they otherwise would have, if we gave notice today and introduced tomorrow. Therefore, to clarify for the member for Brennan, there is no intention or device in this that the government will do this on every occasion; it is simply the nature of this bill that it requires urgency and it is really giving the House 24 hours more notice and ability to get across the bill than they otherwise would have. No more in it than that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this just turns me to my first issue. When the member sought leave, I rose to speak on that. I was not given the call and the matter was simply put to the vote. This is an issue of process, and process is going to be a large part of this issue. I believe I should at least be afforded the opportunity to speak on the minister’s application to this House that he could move straight into a second reading speech. Otherwise, I see it as a contravention of the very principles that our standing orders outline.
Madam SPEAKER: When leave was granted, member for Macdonnell, I gave the nod to the minister to speak.
Mr Henderson: You could have said no.
Mr Elferink: I did say no, and then I got to my feet.
Madam SPEAKER: Just let me ask the Clerk before you all just start jumping.
As the Clerk says, we went through the process of seeking leave. I tried to clarify it twice and where we are now is at the point where the minister is going to give his second reading speech. That is where we are at. That is the process that we have gone through and you had your opportunity earlier.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, and I stand to be corrected, but the minister did not move that so much of standing orders be suspended and that is a contradiction of standing orders that we can move to the process of debate without the suspension of standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister sought leave to present a bill without notice. Those were his words and leave was granted.
Mr Baldwin: All you have to suspend is standing orders because it has contravened the standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: When leave was granted he just followed the process …
Mr Baldwin: But we said no.
Madam SPEAKER: … and presented.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I said no and then I climbed to my feet when …
Madam SPEAKER: I did not …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the point is that the minister comes in here and says, ‘I am going to do this,’ and then simply goes down the procedure of seeking leave. We should have a right …
Mr Stirling: Why aren’t you interested in the bill?
Mr ELFERINK: I am very interested.
Madam SPEAKER: I am advised that the process I went through was to clarify because I had not heard whether there was any dissenting voice on leave, so I again put the question, ‘Was leave granted’, and it was a ‘Yes’. I have gone through the process as required. If you are now saying that there was a dissenting voice on leave, then I have to say that I did not hear it. That is why I reaffirmed that. However, for the sake of fairness within this Chamber and because we are debating something that is fairly important, I will put the question again. Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. Minister.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to introduce …
Madam SPEAKER: No, no, no. You now have to move your suspension of standing orders.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from introducing forthwith a bill relating to the safety of swimming pools.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, now you may speak.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this motion of suspending standing orders. What the government is trying to do in this House is to usurp a process which is longstanding and has not been experienced by any member of this House, not by any member of this House, including the longest serving member of this House. I have grave concerns about this.
Madam Speaker, it is very important to go through this process because this House is not subservient to the government; it works the other way around. This is something that seems to be totally forgotten by this government. This process that the government is going through is something that we have already seen examples of in relation to this particular issue that the government is trying to bring forward. Let’s go through the chronology of how we find ourselves in a place where the government feels it is necessary to walk in to this Chamber and usurp this Chamber’s authority by simply asserting its right to bring things on if and when it pleases.
This history goes back to well before October 2002 when the Chief Minister came in to this House and said to Territorians that she would introduce comprehensive swimming pool legislation and through that process she did it correctly. She brought the matter before the House. When she bought the matter before the House, she did it in the correct fashion. However, the process that she had engaged in publicly before bringing the matter to the House was a fait accompli. She had already said: ‘This is what we are going to do; this is how we are going to proceed in relation to pool fencing in the Northern Territory’. That is fine; that is her business. Because the whole thing was rushed through the public environment as well as the parliamentary environment, by the time that August 2003, only ten months later, rolled around, the government came into this House seeking to push things through on urgency. We needed to urgently amend this bill.
The urgent amendments to this bill were passed with some debate. It is worth going back to the fact that the government should have been aware that there were going to be problems with process back in the 2002 environment. In the 2002 environment, the government accused the opposition, which asked sensible questions on the matter, of nitpicking and repeatedly used the expression, if you read the debates: nitpicking.
What the opposition was trying to do was avoid exactly the situation in which the government found itself in August 2003 when they had to bring urgent matters to this Assembly and push them through to make the legislation more workable. They knew that they were in trouble that stage, yet in December 2003, not two months after the urgent and hurried-up process of setting aside standing orders and making an amendments to their original swimming pool legislation, they announced a review.
They made those comments in about mid-December 2003 and in January 2004, they started advertising for their review. As a result of advertising for their review, their review was held in January 2004, which was last month. This review was held within four months of their very urgent legislation being pushed through this House - once again, a direct result of the problems they have with process.
The review is handed down in January 2004 and in early February 2004, this month, last week in fact, the government committed itself to a whole change in legislative structure of the legislation itself. Now they are in this House trying to push through this legislation as quickly as they can. Those people who forget the lessons of history are oft doomed to repeat them. In this instance, we have to appreciate that in this place, we as a parliament are not bound by the reactionary approach of this government towards drafting legislation and pushing it through. That is exactly what the minister is trying to do here today.
The minister wants to come in here and totally usurp the long-standing processes that we have in this parliament to accommodate what he wants to achieve. The excuse is: ‘We want to leave it sitting on the Notice Paper a little bit longer, so you guys can have a better look at it, and we will pass it next week’. The fact is that had they listened in the first place, they would not be in the position they are in now. This then places the opposition in an invidious situation: do we compliment the government and assist them in usurping standing orders so they can hurry through these changes, whatever they are -I do not know what they are yet - or do we sit here and say: ‘No, we are going to apply ourselves to process’, and find ourselves in the horrible situation that we will end up doing what the government starting out doing, and that was causing all sorts of problems in the community.
Nothing prevents the second reading speech being passed around to each and every member before the minister delivers it. Nothing! They could have easily have done this yesterday or even on Friday if it was ready. The point here, Madam Speaker, is that the abuse of process that we are starting to see is starting to corrode the rights of this Chamber to go about its business.
I would strongly urge the government to reconsider the way it approaches this Chamber and strongly urge this government to reconsider the way it does its job. For my part, the process that the government is taking is an insult to the people of this Chamber, and it is an insult to Territorians in terms of their democratic rights and processes. This business of walking in here and simply saying, ‘This is what I am going to do’, is not good enough and I certainly will not support the motion. I will support the dissemination of the second reading speech and I would support the normal processes being adhered to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will be brief, so we can get on with the second reading. The hypocrisy of members opposite is astounding. The convention is – and it is in the practice of trying to cooperatively manage the business of the House – the opposition were briefed by the Government Whip yesterday that we were going through this process. They had no problems with it. This is purely a stunt by the member for Macdonnell who is quickly becoming an oxygen thief in this Chamber. I am advised that it costs about $6000 an hour to run this place. We could have been debating this bill, and that little tirade has probably cost the taxpayer about $1000 in time wasting.
We know those members opposite have had a history of neglecting this issue. They have had a history of not being concerned in regards to two or three children a year drowning a year in the Northern Territory. We, with good intent, are trying to resolve this issue. I urge all members of this House to participate genuinely in this debate. It is a very important issue. It goes to the safety of our children in our community. I urge honourable members to let the minister proceed with his second reading. I move the motion be put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mrs Miller
Ms Scrymgour Mr Mills
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that motion to suspend so much of standing orders to allow the bill to be presented forthwith be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Does this include the urgency motion that the minister spoke on?
Madam SPEAKER: This is moving the suspension of standing orders to present the bill forthwith.
Mr DUNHAM: I raise the point of order, Madam Speaker, in that when the minister went into his second reading speech he did speak about urgency, and the parliament had not decided. I wonder whether you have in fact made a declaration yourself under Standing Order 179 regarding urgency?
Madam SPEAKER: The minister had not, in fact, moved the second reading speech when he advised members that he was going to suspend standing orders later in the day to pass the bill through all stages. He had not started his second reading speech before we did all this. Therefore, we have now moved a motion that standing orders be suspended to allow him to introduce his bill. That is where we are now.
Mr DUNHAM: Then my question still stands, Madam Speaker. Have you made a declaration under Standing Order 179?
Madam SPEAKER: I have not been asked. No, I have not been asked.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, is there now a question before the House?
Madam SPEAKER: No. We have just moved the question about standing orders.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving the following motion:
with no room for discretion;
11. the indecent haste and abuse of process in rushing these new laws through this parliament in the next few days.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 95 the government will accept the censure as it is proposed - an interesting tactic to propose a censure before we have heard the proposed legislation. Never mind the confusion on the other side; we will take the censure.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly censure and condemn the Chief Minister for her handling of the pool fencing issue and, in particular, for:
with no room for discretion;
Madam SPEAKER: Can we have a copy of that motion. Yes. Okay, off you go.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, the issue here is the process which has been foisted upon this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory. It was never the issue of the safety of children - never has been the issue of the safety of children. It is to do with the very process whereby this legislation has been foisted upon this community.
The points that have been raised were simply the points that have been raised by the Northern Territory community. They believe that the process that has been in put place, to foist in a highhanded way, has cost Territorians immeasurably. We talked about the ‘oxygen thief’ over there before, but legislation has been put in place and now dismantled because of the pressure of Territorians who have risen up and spoken very clearly so the Chief Minister has now heard. It is costing Territorians $21m at least. Twenty one million dollars! You reach into their pockets and you can take $21m and you will expect Territorians to say, ‘What a fine Chief Minister we have. At least she is sorry. At least she apologised’. That apology comes with a $21m price tag at their expense.
You can go ahead and fix the problem. But it is costing immeasurably, and it is costing due to the lack of community consultation in the very first instance and the way that this has been foisted through in this Chamber even in the way it was endeavoured to be done this morning.
The lack of fairness in the system that was implemented, the inconsistency in your legislation, is a direct result of the haste in which it was foisted upon the Northern Territory community; the fact that there was no adequate consultation at the outset. The community is of that view. There was no proper consultation in the first instance. You have community councils coming out and saying that you did not listen right at the beginning. You had the opportunity to assess models that were in place and you paid no heed to systems that were already in place. In an endeavour, and a misguided and a very courageous endeavour, as Bob Collins would describe it, you charged in where fools would rush in and angels would fear to tread. You now have a structure in place that you have to hastily dismantle and in a manner, which we have presented to the parliament, an abortion of process that does not allow us, as members who represent the Northern Territory community, due process in being able to access the details of the legislation so that we can fairly and slowly and sensibly fix up the problem that you have created here in the Northern Territory.
You have overridden the high priority Territorians place on lifestyle and freedom. By bringing this into this Chamber today in this way, is a clear illustration of the political imperatives that drive the Chief Minister. It is so important. Obviously, you have done some polling; obviously, the message was delivered very securely to the members sitting opposite that their future is in jeopardy. So, with great haste, extraordinary haste, we now seek to dismantle the solution that you foisted upon the Northern Territory community at great expense and in a manner which brings disrepute upon this parliament.
The fact that the administration of the act was not working; there are significant fundamental problems. These are issues that were raised in your own review of the operation of the Swimming Pool Fencing Act, which you have managed to do in great haste, obviously indicating the level of concern that has been placed upon you by your own polling, that you have serious problems with regards to this legislation. We must register, on behalf of Territorians, the anger that is felt in the community by the way in which you have wielded this across the Northern Territory community: how you have interrupted peoples’ lifestyles; how you have invaded their backyards; how you have put neighbour against neighbour; because of an ill-conceived concept and, in its mechanics, was seriously flawed.
You had many opportunities here, at the urging of opposition members, to slow the process down and to get it right. You ignored the opportunity presented to you during the introduction to slow it down and address some of the concerns that were raised at the very beginning. Those concerns are concerns that have risen up to bite and bite most fiercely.
I notice also, Chief Minster, that in the early days your photo was hoisted very prominently beside this great initiative, which you owned personally. Now your photo seems to have disappeared. It is something that is going to reappear in a completely different form and we have a very repentant Chief Minister who is desperately sorry for what she has done. Well, Territorians are going to remember. They are going to remember, whenever they see their pool fence, this Chief Minister who, in a high-handed way, has implemented a legislative regime that has interfered in a most profound way with the lifestyle of Territorians.
The issue here is simply the principle of process. To allow this parliament this morning to have your remedy in such a high-handed way that we had no opportunity even to access the legislation before we heard the second reading speech - you wheeled it straight in.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: This is a simple issue of process. You have distorted this process this morning and you want to bring it on with great urgency without …
Members interjecting.
Mr Burke: I am proud of this legislation, you all said.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr Stirling: We are proud that now kids drowned since – unlike you! You had responsibility. You could have acted, but you were too gutless.
Mr Burke: You couldn’t care less about kids’ lives! You are only interested in votes!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan! Member for Brennan. Order! Deputy Chief Minister, order! The Leader for the Opposition has the floor. I am sure he would like to continue.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, this is not the opposition’s censure motion. This is a censure motion that is delivered to the Chief Minister on behalf of Territorians, every Territorian who has been inconvenienced, put at financial loss, who had neighbor against neighbor as a result of the actions of this Chief Minister. It is a censure motion that is delivered on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory and you must, as Chief Minister, accept full responsibility for what you have done: legislation to which you tied yourself, of which you are eminently proud. You paraded yourself attached to this legislation. It is on behalf of Territorians that I deliver this censure to you, Chief Minister, for the way in which you have managed this issue.
The number of people who have had the opportunity to express their opinion in a very short time frame and the number of people who have responded in the very brief window of opportunity you gave them over the Christmas period is extraordinary if any member would like to read the report on the review of the operation of Swimming Pool Fencing Act. It is a damning review. It is the way in which it has been done - I reflect the anger in the Northern Territory community at your actions, Chief Minister, at the way in which you have done this and at the way in which in this parliament this morning, you would like to short-circuit the process and introduce it as the highest priority just to save your face, just to save the political damage, to try to manage this issue in a way that will advance your own political agenda.
Playing politics is what is driving this. It is not principally the safety of children. It is principally the way in which you look, the way you appear with your team before the Northern Territory community. It would be wrong of me as an elected member and the Leader of the Opposition to let this pass without registering strongly how Northern Territory families feel about the results of the decision you have passed on to the Northern Territory community.
You have had public servants go up and down the track on the show circuit endeavouring to sell your message, endeavouring to try to pacify the concerns of the community. I was with them on that show circuit. There was a level of hostility being experienced and articulated in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and, finally, Darwin.
Those poor public servants who had to work hard to implement a regime that you had ill-considered and brought to bear upon the Northern Territory community suffered immeasurably as a result of your actions. On a personal note, I noticed that at the end of the last show in Darwin, those good public servants who represented your best interests and the legislation that you attached yourself to, were largely ignored by you, Chief Minister. You did not want much to do with them because you realised that the heat was increasing in the Northern Territory community and you knew that it was reflecting badly upon you and your members.
There has been significant offence committed in the lack of recognition for those public servants who have been required to implement a regime that was ill-considered in the first place, and was implemented in a way that did not allow proper consultation and careful consideration. The primary consideration, of course, should have been, and now Territorians know it was not, was the very best interests of Territory families. It seemed to be an ill-conceived and, I will say it again, a courageous move on the part of the Chief Minister to walk in, attach yourself to this issue and think that this is the one that is going to have you foisted up in lights as the greatest Chief Minister the Northern Territory has ever seen. Well, it has backfired on you, and it would be wrong to allow this to pass without the registering of the concern of the Northern Territory community for the actions of this Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this censure. I thought, the way the Leader of the Opposition was warming to his topic and the absolute outrage he was expressing against me personally, that he would actually take the time that is allocated. What was it, 12 minutes? Twelve minutes of wagging his finger at me and calling outrage. If we are going to talk about parliamentary process, and we had considerable debate wasting oxygen in here about parliamentary process, you had eleven points in your censure. Did you prosecute any of them? No. Part of the reason for having a censure is that you put down what you want to prosecute and you follow it through. And now we have had this opposition who have been lecturing parliament about process this morning not even following the process of a censure.
In the scheme of things that we are dealing with, pool fencing and children’s safety is a very important issue. Year after year in the Territory we had the tragedy of young kids drowning; kids drowning in our backyard pools. Even though the previous government had recommendations about the need to have overarching legislation, they never moved on it. Coronial recommendations that we needed to bring our pool fencing up to a proper standard, and it was never moved on by previous governments.
This is an indictment of the CLP. I make no apology for standing in here and wanting to do the best we can do by Territory kids. When I am criticised by the Opposition Leader for overriding the high priority Territorian’s place on lifestyle and freedom – do you know what lifestyle and freedom is about? It is making sure your kids can grow up in safety. That is what lifestyle and freedom is about. It is about making sure our kids have a chance to grow up, and the ones who did not have that opportunity because they drowned, and we had the highest under five drowning rate in Australia – to our shame – year after year. I make no apology. When the Opposition Leader said: ‘Oh, she put her pictures on the information’, I did it because I was committed to it. I was committed to making sure that we have the safest backyards that we could bring about in the Territory; that would match what was expected around Australia.
Madam Speaker, we moved on that legislation, we consulted with councils, and asked councils to give us their best ideas about it. We did talk through the process. We brought the legislation into parliament …
Mr Burke: You did not; you ignored them. They tried to tell you. You are big noting yourself.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, it is important that the member for Brennan yell a lot, because that would really help the debate.
Mr Burke: You had your photo all over the Northern Territory. You ignored them; that is why they are angry.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan! Order!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, we brought in the laws and we said at the time we brought those laws in just over a year ago that we would review those laws - we would make sure that they were workable laws. When we realised that, even though over the last year there were 6000 pools that were registered around the Territory, and for new pools those laws worked very well - there was no problem – we recognised – and there is no doubt about it – many people were very frustrated. They were trying to do the right thing; they were trying to support our lifestyle by making sure that there was adequate fencing in backyards around pools and spas …
Mr Dunham: They were trying to rent their houses out; they were trying to sell their properties. That is what they were trying to do.
Ms MARTIN: What they were trying to do was to achieve the aims of the legislation. We realised that, even though after amendment that created a level of flexibility, we were not getting there.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I am happy to stand here – and I stood in front of the media and I will say to any Territorian, I am sorry for those people …
Mr Dunham: Where is your apology? It is about time you apologised.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the Opposition Leader only spoke for 12 minutes. I can be quiet if the member for Drysdale will not be quiet. I can just sit down.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Drysdale will have his turn.
Mr Dunham: Oh, sure, I will have a go.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: I am not happy but I accept that it is important to say if somebody was frustrated about what happened with the pool fencing – and there were many – then I apologise. I have listened and we have acted. That is the proper response of government.
For the 6000 people who registered their pool and worked with the laws, that has been a positive experience. However, we recognise there were many who wanted to get their pools registered and the way the legislation was written was not facilitating that. We have recognised that. It is important that we recognise that. The overriding ambition here is to make sure that under-fives are safe around pools and spas in our backyards. That is what we want. The intention has not changed from the first legislation. That is what it is all about.
The Opposition Leader again gets it wrong, wrong, wrong. He started his tirade by saying: ‘This is not about keeping our children safe’. Well, what is it about? It is about keeping our children safe! It is about ensuring that they have a lifestyle. That is what it is all about.
Whilst we are talking about what the Opposition Leader cannot get right, he has a track record. He says it is not about the safety of children. Wrong. The Opposition Leader is wrong again. He says it is going to $21m. He is right on that, but the previous scheme with the early registration incentive scheme was going to cost in the same quantum. We made that commitment for incentives, and we will continue to make that commitment for the next four years. However, we have changed a combination of grant and loan to a straight grant; that is the difference. But the quantum is about the same.
Again, the Opposition Leader comes in here and he is wrong. He is wrong, wrong, wrong. Then he says we are trying to short-circuit the parliamentary process. The member for Macdonnell said: ‘Give us the second reading speech’. This is what the parliament is about. You put the second reading speech and the bill into the parliament.
Where are you opposition members coming from? On one hand you are demanding process, and then you are demanding that we throw it away. What we have done is simply to say we will bring the legislation in as early as we can, so you have more time to look at it; so that you have more time to produce, in the second reading debate, a good contribution. And we have had the silliest and the most uninformed comments about that in here this morning.
There is always capacity in our standing orders to have that kind of procedure happen. Always that kind of flexibility. And we put it properly to the parliament. So, the Leader of the Opposition comes in, he does not prosecute his case for a censure, and then gets it wrong. Let us talk about sensible debate in this parliament. If you want to say, Leader of the Opposition, that for pre-existing pools we did not get it right, I agree with you. I absolutely agree. For many pre-existing pools we got them across the line. For new pools, we got them across the line, but there were frustrations. We all heard them. Pools that had a fence that was maybe a centimeter too short; it could even be half a centimeter, as the Leader of Government Business said. The issue of neighbours: we know how much that caused grief. And that is part of the Australian Standard. So we have modified that to be sensible. We are saying if you own a pool, then your backyard is where your responsibility is, and you take responsibility for making sure that is at an acceptable standard.
We are achieving the same ends of making our children safe by different means. We are accepting that the previous legislation, while it had some strengths, also had some frustrations. So we are removing that legislation. We are bringing in new legislation. What I have clearly said is that I recognise the frustration, I am sorry about that, and let us move on. This is about good policy. This is also about creating safety, supporting lifestyle in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, it is an important issue. I am not denying that in the slightest. We recognise that the intention of where we were going with the previous legislation was the right one. We just had to look at a different pathway this time. So, while I can stand in here and listen to the rhetoric and finger-pointing and lecturing that the Leader of the Opposition did, what we should be united on in this parliament is child safety. It is supporting our lifestyle. The most important thing that I can say to this parliament over what has happened in the last 18 months is that we have not had one child drowning in the Northern Territory in a backyard in that time. That is fantastic! We should be cheering that. And the consciousness in our community of the importance of children and safety around backyard pools and fences backyard pools and spas has been heightened. I am proud of that.
I am not proud of the fact that we did not get the legislation right; not at all. So we will change that. However, I expect support for this new legislation. We will achieve the outcomes that we want. We will have more flexibility. We will have fences that may be two centimeters below Australian Standard, but safe for our children; they will be workable and they will be able to be registered. We have a more sensible process, we are recognising Territorians and their commitment to providing safety in backyards. We are saying to Territorians, ‘This is your responsibility; we will work with you. We will give you advice. If you want to change we have grants to assist in achieving our new Community Safety Standard,’ which pretty much in line with the Australian Standard or the modified Australian Standard, ‘You have a grant to achieve that’.
This is a workable scheme. It has been applauded by people who can use it, who will use it. I stand here saying yes, there were problems with one piece. We had 6000 pools registered. We are recognising that and we, Madam Speaker, are moving on.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, it is all very well for the Chief Minister to walk in here after all this time saying mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. The truth of the matter is: she was warned. She was told this was going to happen. And where was she told? She was told in this Chamber. How did she deal with it? She dismissed it as ‘nitpicking’: deliberately finding hypothetical examples as to why this legislation was going to have problems. We were told by the Chief Minister, ‘We know what we are doing. Just let us get on with it and you will discover that all will be sweetness and light and we can follow the yellow brick road to the wonderful Land of Oz’.
It is all very well for her to say sorry, but she has come into this place and been warned. There is the warning. It is the committee stages and second reading debate that went on in this Chamber on 8 October 2002. She was told by members on this side of the House, as well as a couple of comments from other members, and that should have been flagging warning bells. But so urgent was the need to get this legislation through that she chose not to speak to the public in the first instance. She would just brought the matter in this House, have the legislation go through the normal processes, spit it out the other end, and she would walk around being the rescuer of children. This is an issue that has been raised repeatedly by the Chief Minister this morning.
This comes to point one of the censure motion: the lack of fairness and inconsistency of the legislation and the way that it was applied. The way it was applied was rigorous. She was told in the second reading debate and through the committee stages of this bill that that was going to be a problem. She was told and she chose to ignore it. It is frustrating in the extreme to find myself back in this Chamber back on this issue when the Chief Minister and her colleagues in the Labor Party were told, and it was made abundantly clear to them, that these problems would end up in inconsistency and would create problems with the way it was applied. A centimetre on a pool fence in my instance, and I have to declare an interest: I am an owner of a spa. When that spa was fenced, because it had to comply with this legislation - my father-in-law was kind enough to help me put up the fence before it was certified - the inspector came around, and we were told that a child could dig under the dirt where the palm trees were. We were there with a mattock and axe for half an hour digging under the fence so we could put in a small piece of concrete to prevent a child from getting in there.
That was the sort of pedantic stuff that the inspectors were bound to by this legislation; they had no choice. It was this Chief Minister who put them into the situation where they had to almost apologise every time that they had to apply the law. This Chief Minister was told it was going to happen, and she chose to ignore it. Now she says: ‘Oh, I am sorry. Oops’. I am afraid that it cost me thousands of dollars to get the fence up in accordance with the legislation.
I now have the certificate. This is the second part of point one: now that I have the certificate, how long is the certificate good for? How long is it good for? Well, I do not know because trees grow, fences change shape, vines grow on fences, things change around fences. What does the certificate actually do? It just tells me that at particular point of time, my certificate is good for a fence which complies that may not comply in a few months time. Really, what I have to do is have this piece of paper so that I can sell my house or put a tenant into it. Indeed, it has been a frustrating thing not only suffered by me, but suffered so many Territorians who have tried to comply with the law, which was policed very vigorously.
Overriding the high priority Territorians place on lifestyle and freedom: my fence complied with the Alice Springs Town Council By-laws, when they existed. I had self-closing doors around my spa, it was separation fenced, effectively the boundary fence, but it complied. I once watched a 14 year old boy try to climb over my fence, and the only way you could get to my spa - I am just using my own experience by way of example - was to climb over the concrete fence at the front gate of my property, which is about 10 feet high. It took him a good effort and while to get over it. Since that time, I have had to make my pool fence comply with the Chief Minister’s legislation, this parliament’s legislation. Consequently, I have had to put a boundary fence inside a boundary fence for the purposes of making my spa comply with the regulations. So my spa now complies with the regulations, and sure, with the guard towers and barbed wire it does not look very different to Alcatraz in terms of the amount of safety that is around it. Good. The safety aspect has been completed, the only thing that I could think of doing to make it more child safe is pouring concrete into the spa and just having it set in that system. However, the fact is that Territorians do enjoy a lifestyle.
That issue was raised in the original committee stages of this debate. The Chief Minister was warned that this was going to be a problem. She was told by members in this House that that was going to be a problem. Yet steadfastly she said: ‘This is the way we are going to do it. Child safety is paramount above all else’. She answered, in a question she was asked on 14 August 2002: ‘I am moving, this government is moving to look after young children in the Territory particularly’. She also went on to make similar observations on 26 February 2003: ‘I am not ashamed of being a bit emotional about that, because saving our kids’ lives should be the highest priority for this government’.
If the Chief Minister is going to be true to her position, the highest priority, this is a single focus thing in her mind, I ask myself: ‘What is the best way to prevent children from drowning in backyard pools in the Territory if that’s going to happen?’ That is easy. You fill in all the pools. You cut them up, you throw them away, you get rid of them, whatever, but you ban swimming pools in the Northern Territory. That is an absurd situation, and not even the Chief Minister would contemplate that. So she says, already, philosophically at least, that she is prepared to back away from the best way to protect children.
So what is the standard she applies? The standard she applies to protect children is the Australian Standard. No ifs, no buts, no questions. The Australian Standard was the only standard which would apply. Now, that is not filling in spas, that is not banning pools - already she has acknowledged that there has to be a balance between lifestyle and child safety. That is not an outrageous suggestion or assertion. If we make child safety the absolute paramount across a raft of issues, our community and society would look quite different.
The fact is the act of pursuing safety issues is a matter of balance. The Chief Minister came to a point where she said: ‘This is my standard, the Australian Standard pool fencing, this is the standard to which I am wedded, to which I hug myself and you nitpickers can go away because I am here to protect children’. And she said it again today, she said it again during questions in this House, and again in the 2003 amendment brought to this House.
I accept that the Chief Minister is trying to protect children, but if that is what she is wedded to, if that is what she so concretely believes, then she has effectively told this parliament that, ‘Oh, my God, now I am going to have to try to water this down to make this more applicable to the lifestyle of Northern Territorians’. Well, she has either demonstrated herself to be emotional and rash in introducing legislation in this House and leading her government, or she has decided that kids’ lives are expendable for political purposes.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker. That does go beyond the pale to accuse the Chief Minister of making a decision that ‘kids’ lives are expendable’, when the whole point of this is to save lives.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I do think that was inappropriate. Member for Macdonnell, I do ask you to withdraw that.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr Burke interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, member for Nhulunbuy, order, both of you!
Mr ELFERINK: May I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker?
Mr Stirling: You have been asked to withdraw. You are challenging the Speaker’s ruling. Take a walk! She has made a ruling.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Clearly, Madam Speaker, the government is sensitive about this particular issue.
Mr STIRLING: I have not heard a withdrawal, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes he did, he did.
Mr ELFERINK: I did withdraw it, you goose. Sit down!
Mr Kiely: Stop yelling and you will hear.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: This is the way you address other people; I am addressing you in the same fashion. Do not stand there and look like an insulted little puppy.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: If this is going to be the level of debate in this House, then some of you will leave. You are getting quite disorderly and out of hand. Do not just jump to your feet and speak without waiting for me to acknowledge you. All be warned. Member for Macdonnell, you have the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, obviously the Chief Minister believes that either she has to act rationally in relation to these sorts of things and broach no consideration or argument, or she considers public safety an expendable issue for political purposes. I am frustrated in the extreme to have to sit here and go through this process again because this Chief Minister was so steadfast in not listening to the issues that were being raised originally.
The administration of the act is not working. There are increasing queues and delays being caused and forced upon people trying to sell and rent their properties. In fact, that was the reason that this Chamber had to readdress this issue in 2003. Again, she was warned that this was going to happen. It is not like this has come out of a vacuum like a meteor from space. This was actually identified to her in the second reading process and through the committee stages of this debate in 2002.
‘No compromise would be broached, no compromise would be accepted. This was an issue of child safety. No compromise on child safety’. That was the mantra; that was the chant. ‘That is what we are going to do and this is a courageous thing’. I can admire that. I could admire that in a politician who was prepared to stand up and say: ‘I will not back down on an issue’. However, unfortunately, her position now has somewhat changed. Where is the no back down? Where is the no, I am going to stand by public safety and child safety issues? It has evaporated into the ether for political purposes.
There are significant differences of view within the community and the bureaucracy and the way that the act is being policed. The approval process had taken so long in some cases that the dates for transfer of properties were missed. This is not the only example. Not only have the dates for transfers of property been missed, but people take bridging finance from time to time, and that bridging finance has the purpose of being able to make these sorts of deals go ahead. However, they are expensive to organise and to maintain. It is worrying in the extreme that, in at least one case that I am aware of, a person has paid about $1000 in extra fees for bridging finance because of the long delay.
Is that a compensatable item? There are some questions I have to ask during the debate later on. Is that going to be one of the compensatable items that we can get some money for? Is the devaluation of land because the amenity of a person’s backyard has been changed by a pool fence going to be an item that is compensatable? These are problems with the administration of the act, and these are things that the Chief Minister is now asking us to fix in spite of the fact that she was warned of them.
There is concern and confusion out there as to what exactly the incentive schemes are. It has never been particularly clear. There is concern and confusion in all sorts of places, in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, as to where the incentive money goes and how much you get. We were going to be promised a certain amount to build a fence, but then the standard of the fence had changed because we would only give compensation to a fraction of a fence of a particular standard. It started to smell and look shonky, like cheap political tricks, and - lo and behold! - why? Because that is exactly what it was.
The government not only said that child safety is vitally important to us, but we also are going to spend as little money as we possibly can on it and transfer as much of the pain to the person who possesses the pool and the spa. One of the reasons that this government caused so much grief out there is that the processes they engaged in were effectively an indirect tax on pool and spa owners, ‘We are going to make the law. You are going to come up to a safety standard. We are going to put as little into this as we possibly can, only enough to make it look like we are being generous’. But the moment someone drilled into it, it was not that generous. It was very tight-fisted.
Madam Speaker, I have touched on the fact that the inspectors were tied down by the act. Here are these poor inspectors who are expected to go out, police this act, and that is exactly what they were required to do, police the act. In spite of the fact that in 2003 the Chief Minister said, ‘Inspectors: that’s the lowest sort of level of enforcement you could possibly have’, and that is present in the debate before this House in 2003, ‘An inspector is hardly a policing body’. The fact is that if you give a person a legislative function to do and powers to enforce that legislative function, it is a policing function. You can call it a ‘marshmallow’ if you like; it does not change the fact that it is a policing function. These inspectors were caught in a position where they had to go into peoples’ backyards with a power of entry, where necessary, and effect inspections on backyard pools.
This is something that the Chief Minister was warned about. She knew that this was going to be a problem. Her response to it was saying, ‘Oh, it’s all going to be warm and fuzzy. It’s all going to be sweetness and light. Don’t worry about that’, and yet, in a press release the other day, she said, ‘The inspectors are no longer going to be called inspectors. They are going to called advisors’. But here is the question she did not answer in her little press release: are these advisors going to have power of entry? Are these advisors still going to inspect pools and those sorts of things? We watch and wait – and rather than brief us on it and those sorts of things, let us go straight into the second reading debate here in the parliament and rush it all through again. Rushing has caused these problems, and now we find ourselves in the invidious situation that if we do not rush to fix them then these problems will continue.
There is a lack of consultation on the details of the legislation that is going to be introduced, was introduced in 2003, and the original legislative package of 2002. This was the government that went to Territorians at the last election saying, ‘Honest. Open. Accountable’. It is in their policy document. What did that mean? Consultation. They were going to talk to people and so far, consistently, they have not listened. Let us examine that process that they have engaged in. The process has been, ‘We make the announcement and we introduce the legislation. Oh, I’m sorry. How sad; too bad’. Nobody really gets spoken to. ‘We then decide on some amendments in 2003. How sad; too bad’. Nobody gets spoken to. Finally they realise a consultation process might be appropriate, so in December 2003 they announce a review. In January 2004, they advertised for submissions to that review; in January 2004, they hold the review; all in the same month; the review is finalised. As Mr Bob Collins has outlined so perfectly well, quoting Sir Humphrey Appleby, ‘You don’t have a review until you know what the answers of that review are’. Those are the answers that this Chief Minister is bringing before the House today.
Madam Speaker, this Chief Minister has failed Territorians not because she wants to protect children, but she has failed Territorians because she has failed to consult, failed to listen to warnings, failed to follow this processes of this parliament in a decent and open manner, and she has betrayed Territorians’ trust, betrayed it in the sense that she has not consulted with them, and she has not held good for the contract for which she purchased their votes. At the end of the day, this Chief Minister needs to be condemned by this parliament for failing to consult with Territorians and act in a decent way towards Territory people so she could have come up with a workable piece of legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of students from Henbury Outreach School, which is part of the Casuarina Senior College. They are accompanied by their teachers. On behalf of all members, I bid you a warm welcome. I am quite sure you are finding the debate entertaining.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker when you start to burrow down into the swimming pool issues and the historic concerns that have been expressed as far back as the early 1990s, you find some interesting stuff. If I had the opportunity earlier, I would have been able to inform members opposite of the way in which we propose to bring about changes to make it better and continue to ensure that we buy parents time and that we stop the abhorrent record that we have had over the last 10 years. In fact, it was mentioned this morning by the Chief Minister in earlier debate that we have not had one drowning in the last 12 months, since the introduction, and we need to touch wood …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Just hang on. You might learn something. You might learn something soon if you stop being rude. I will try to educate you a little bit because you are culprits; you are culprits that need to be exposed.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: All members! No cross-Chamber chatter, please. Get on with the debate.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, my apologies. They tend to get a bit excited when the bucket is rattled.
The hypocrisy of the people on the other side of the Chamber is breathtaking. Why? Here they are, grandstanding on pools, yet they have blood on their hands.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr AH KIT: Blood on their hands over this issue.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr DUNHAM: Quite rightly, the Deputy Chief Minister pointed out that in this debate, to be talking about the deaths of children is offensive. For the minister to continue in this vein, I think he should be pulled up.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I hope that you were not continuing that line of debate. I would suggest that you do not continue that way. I have to admit I did not hear what you said.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, they have a very bad track record, and I will come to that shortly. If we go back and have a look, as I said, at some of historic discussions, we find that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Greatorex, who was, as we know, a minister in the former CLP government and a former Alice Springs town councillor, said in this House just after he was elected:
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, I will turn sideways. I will finish the quote:
We then go and have a look at June 1996 when the Coroner presented findings on the death by drowning of five children in residential pools in the Northern Territory over 1995 and 1996. Included in the report’s recommendations was the one that suggested a working party consisting of representatives of the government and local government together with other stakeholders should be convened. That working party convened in November 1996 and met again in August 1997. The Department of Local Government carried out considerable research and the working party held a workshop in November 1997 to finalise recommendations that were presented to government. Two of the key recommendations that were put to government were, and I quote:
(a) that there should be overarching legislation enacted by the Territory for the regulation of swimming pools; and
The government of the day, the CLP, rejected these recommendations. They trashed the work of the group that was formed as a result of a Coronial inquiry and they wimped out on pool safety. And they have been doing it ever since.
If you go back to 1996-97, from memory, the then Chief Minister was Shane Stone. No doubt, I believe in that Cabinet, when the Cabinet submission came forward, there would have been minister Dunham, minister Burke, minister Baldwin, and maybe I can jog their memories a bit, because they were there and took the decision to trash the Cabinet submission.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was never a minister in the Shane Stone government.
Mr AH KIT: They are now grandstanding here, saying how we have it wrong, but they do not tell us that they knocked this back, they rejected it. ‘Oh, this is too hard for us, let us get out of this, let somebody else do it, we are not going anywhere near this, we are not going to touch this’. That is why I refer to their hypocrisy.
For three years in a row, the annual reports of the Department of Local Government promised the public of the Northern Territory decent, overarching legislation on pool fencing for the Northern Territory. Indeed, in 1999-2000, the promise to Territorians was, and I quote: ‘Introduce and implement new legislation relating to swimming pool fencing’. What did you do, members opposite? Sweet nothing.
This is not just a censure against the Chief Minister, it is an attempt to censure and condemn the good work by the public servants.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: You say oh, oh, oh! Every time you get an opportunity to belt up the public servants you go for it.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Member for Goyder, we know what he said: ‘They are pool police’. He said it in the paper, he said it here. You support that, you all support that they are pool police. You do not understand that they are hard working public servants who are there to do the work and carry out the letter of the law in regards to the legislation. I had morning tea with them recently. I sat down and had a chat with them about the good work that they have done, and to not feel disheartened and to not take …
A member: And then you sacked them.
Mr AH KIT: None them are going to be sacked. Well, if you heard what I had to say in the second reading speech you might have a different view, but that is not what you are talking about here, you want to play politics. That is all right, that is what we are here for.
They choose, when it suits them, to belt up on public servants. We do not do that on this side of the House. We understand the work they have to do in carrying out their job. These public servants have been working in the front line and doing a great job. They understand that government wishes to bring about changes. That is what we are going to be doing with my introduction of this bill and for the debate next Thursday evening.
Those people who have been working in the Swimming Pool Fencing Unit have given advice to 13 000 people. They have worked on the review and have listened to what the people of the Territory, their fellow citizens, had to say. We consulted in 2002 and ever since. The opposition consulted back in 1996 and, as I said, did nothing. We listened and continue to listen. The opposition, as we know, were deaf to community needs in this regard. We acted and continue to act. Those on the other side did absolutely nothing but try to hide their indecisiveness and lack of intestinal fortitude in wanting to do something in regards to the number of children drowning in the Northern Territory.
When I introduced the Swimming Pool Fencing Act I said that it should be reviewed after 12 months of operation. During the year, I advised many people and stakeholders that, if they had concerns about specific provisions, then they should bring them forward so that they could be taken into account when the act was reviewed. I announced the review on 19 December 2003, and that was followed up by advertisements in NT media on 3 and 6 January 2004. Submissions closed on the 21 January 2004.
The staff of the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs were in an excellent position to conduct a review. I am in a fortunate position of having many excellent staff within the department and, over the last 12 months they have had, as I said, over 13 000 interactions with pool owners. In addition to the 43 submissions to the review, these interactions have been very important in shaping the recommendations in the report.
The simple truth is that this government, unlike our predecessors, is not so arrogant as to not admit our mistakes.
Mr Dunham: Are you apologising too? Two apologies!
Mr AH KIT: The Chief Minister has said it on behalf of government. One wonders, when the member for Drysdale interjects once again, how many times did they, in their 26 years, admit that they had it wrong? How many times did they have the guts to stand up in this Chamber and say: ‘Sorry, we got it wrong, we are going to fix it’? How many times? How many? Sorry, sorry, sorry.
In the case of pool fencing, our objectives were, and remain, protecting our children. This government heeded a call for uniformity and standard legislation to protect the most vulnerable in our community. While the opposition has argued that swimming pool fencing legislation should lie with local government and there is no need for uniformity, the Darwin City Council, in its response to the 1996 inquest stated:
The CLP has been aware of this issue. In 1994, the member for Katherine, now departed from this Chamber, made comment on this during a ministerial statement on child safety in the Northern Territory. I quote Mike Reed. He said:
We admit the pathway we chose was wrong. However, that is more that could be said about the opposition when they were on this side of the Chamber. We know from their public comments that they support safer pools for our children, and they know in their hearts that this can only be achieved through a consistent standard applied across the Territory.
As I said before, we admit the pathway we chose was wrong. We have listened to Territorians and acknowledged the frustrations that many have experienced, and the kinds of frustrations that have led many to not take any action to improve safety standards at all. For this, we have no hesitation, as I said, in apologising to the community. We now seek to engage with the community, and gain their support for a greater level of personal responsibility in attaining and maintaining safety around residential pools. We are not walking away from the difficulties of pool fencing legislation, as the previous government, as I said, did for so many years at the cost of so many lives.
I am pleased to bring to this House legislation that provides our children with a safer community; something that the opposition, I repeatedly said in my debate …
Mr Burke: Garbage.
Mr AH KIT: You say rubbish …
Mr Burke: Garbage! You are self-certifying. How can you call that a standard? What absolute garbage. At least there were by-laws in place before. Now you have self-certifying.
Mr AH KIT: I pick up on the interjection …
Members interjecting..
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Burke: Territorians can self-certify and be self-liable. What garbage!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr AH KIT: Can you tell us, member for Brennan, in debate – and I encourage you, I invite you, and minister Baldwin back in those days, and minister Dunham, I am going to be waiting with bated breath for your contribution to the debate, because it will be very interesting the reasons why you chose to do nothing and why your Cabinet decided to not act at all.
Madam Speaker, it is likely that the CLP will, predictably, attempt to play politics with this legislation to their shame. They know that they should have acted on this years ago but did not. They know it will be legislation that they now cannot turn their backs on. They should actively and constructively engage with the process and support legislation that will save lives.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the censure motion be agreed to? Member for Greatorex.
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The convention for censure motions is that there are two speakers from both sides. That has been agreed to. I move the motion be put.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be out.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, you recognised me. I am ready to take part in the debate. The Leader of Government Business gets up now and starts quoting chapter and verse on conventions when previously he embarked on flaunting every convention there is in the book.
Members: It was agreed. Talk you your whip!
Dr LIM: Either we stick to the convention or we do not.
Mr Henderson: Don’t you guys talk to each other?
Dr LIM: Thank you very much. Shall I proceed, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: No. The question is that the motion be put.
Dr Lim: Another gag, another gag!
The Assembly divided:
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 10 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mrs Miller Ms Martin
Mr Mills Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we go on with government business, I need to make a statement regarding what happened this morning so you know exactly where we are. I want to clarify the proceedings that happened in the Chamber this morning for the purpose of the official record, and so that all members are aware of the current status of proceedings in respect of the Swimming Pool Safety Bill 2004, (Serial 206).
Members will recall that immediately following Ministerial Reports, I called on minister Ah Kit who, in accordance with the proposed procedural arrangements, sought leave to present a bill without notice. On two occasions, I sought an indication from members of whether leave was granted. On the second occasion, I did not hear any dissenting voice and accordingly called upon the minister and he proceeded to present the bill.
The bill was then read a first time by the Clerk, and the minister, in accordance with normal practice, proceeded to move a motion that the bill be read a second time. At that stage, the member for Macdonnell raised a point of order to the effect that leave had not been previously granted to the minister to present the bill.
After further discussion on this point of order, it was my decision to recommit to the Assembly the question for leave for the minister to present the bill without notice. At that stage, leave was not granted and the minister thereupon moved for the suspension of standing orders to enable him to present the bill forthwith.
The motion for the suspension of standing orders was debated and the Leader of Government Business, minister Henderson, moved the question be now put. The Assembly divided and the question was resolved in the affirmative. The question for the suspension of standing orders was then put and passed on voices.
Prior to the minister being called on again to present the bill, the Leader of the Opposition rose and moved for the suspension of standing orders to move a censure motion relating to the Chief Minister. The Leader of Government Business, pursuant to Standing Order 95, accepted the censure motion. Accordingly, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Mills, moved the censure motion, which was debated. The Leader of Government Business moved that the question be now put. The Assembly divided and the question was resolved in the affirmative. The question on the motion of censure of the Chief Minister was put and negatived on the division immediately before the suspension for lunch.
Accordingly, taking into account all that has happened, the Assembly is now at the stage where standing orders have been suspended to enable minister Ah Kit to present the bill. I now call on the minister.
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.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to introduce the Swimming Pool Safety Bill 2004 to the House. This government is strongly committed to improving water safety in the Northern Territory and to reduce the appalling incidents of death through drowning. Water safety must be addressed on a range of fronts: through public education and awareness campaigns; encouraging people to swim; and effective barriers for our pools and spas. Barriers around pools and spas are just one in a complement of measures to ensure pool safety and minimise pool drownings. Fencing provides an important barrier to the pool and gives those who care for children more time to react, providing the safest possible environment for children in and around water.
The Northern Territory has the highest drowning rate in the nation. In the last ten years, over 100 Territory families have experienced the trauma of a desperate rush to get health care for a child who had made it into a backyard pool. That is why we have legislated to protect our youngest and most vulnerable.
In response to our, at times, challenging environment, the Northern Territory has one of the highest ratio of pool ownership in urban centres. In developing the legislation in 2002, we took into account that there were already pool fencing requirements in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs and Jabiru. We assumed that a very high percentage of the pool owners would have expected to have a reasonable barrier to their backyard pools and that all of these pools should have been capable of automatic registration under the new legislation. Therefore, when people wanted to sell or let their properties, then the upgrade to the Australian Standard should have required relative minor effort for most. A generous incentive scheme was established to assist people to upgrade.
How wrong we were, Madam Speaker. Less than half the pools in Palmerston actually met the standard that previously applied and, in Darwin, over 80% of pools did not meet the standards that the Darwin City Council said it was applying. Since the infancy of the introduction of this new legislation, councils have been too interested in playing politics rather than be up-front with their knowledge that there was a high rate of non-compliance and confusion in the application of the by-laws. This was recognised as early as 23 November 1994 by the opposition. The then recently elected member for Greatorex, a former member of the Alice Springs Town Council, stated to parliament, and I quote:
However, when it came to take action, the previous government did nothing and let the status quo remain. In July 1996, the Coroner handed down findings in relation to five infant drownings that had occurred in 1995 and 1996. Included in the report’s recommendations was one that suggested that a working party consisting of representatives of the government and local government together with other stakeholders should be convened. That working party convened in November 1996, and met again in August 1997. The Department of Local Government carried out considerable research, and the working party held a workshop in November 1997 to finalise recommendations that were presented to government. Two of the key recommendations that were put to the government were:
(a) that there should be overarching legislation enacted by the Territory for the regulation of swimming pools; and
The government of the day rejected these recommendations, they trashed the work of the group that was formed as the result of a coronial inquiry, and they wimped out on pool safety. Acting in good faith, many pool owners had thought that their pool fencing was pretty close to the Australian Standard, and they should have no real problem with the new legislation. In fact, in the majority of cases in Darwin and Palmerston, they fell below the previous council standard. So instead of a simple registration process followed by an easy upgrade to Australian Standards, many pool owners faced a difficult and frustrating time that many believed, after all their expense and effort, did not deliver a safe pool.
The result has been the development of strong community concern about the precision and technical requirements of the standards that are being applied. There is no doubt that the Australian Standards are very precise. Starting from scratch, with the installation of a new pool, the Australian Standards are relatively simple to apply. However, when applied to pre-existing backyard pools or spas, that precision often meant pool owners had to undertake works that they believed did not increase the safety of their pool. These issues have muddied the waters and created a debate focussed on fence heights and door latches rather than the bigger issue we are trying to address through pool fencing legislation, which is preventing toddler drownings.
Government wants to focus on pools which have no fencing or perimeter fencing only. The debate to date has largely focussed on pools which are effectively safe and are missing the Australian Standard by a couple of centimetres. The review, which I will soon discuss, made recommendations about how government could improve the targeting and workability of the legislation.
I said when I introduced the Swimming Pool Fencing Act that it should be reviewed after 12 months of operation. During the year, I advised many people and stakeholders that if they had concerns about specific provisions, then they should bring them forward so that they could be taken into account when the act was reviewed. I announced the review on 19 December 2003. That was followed up by advertisements in key media outlets on 3 and 6 January 2004. Submissions closed on 21 January 2004. The staff of the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs were in an excellent position to conduct the review. I am in the fortunate position of having many excellent staff within my department and, over the last 12 months, they have had over 13 000 interactions with pool owners. In addition to the 43 submissions to the review, these interactions have been very important in shaping the recommendations in the report.
The Acting Chief Executive of my department has finalised the review, and he provided me with a report dated 2 February 2004. This report, together with government’s response, was publicly released on 12 February 2004. The key finding of the review is, first and foremost, that a critical assumption underpinning the act is wrong - that the standard of existing pools would closely correlate with council standards and allow for easy upgrade to the Australian Standard. This low level of correlation meant the foundation for easy upgrade to the higher standard was not there. The review also found that there remains strong support in the community for effective barriers around backyard swimming pools, however, there is a strong demand for greater flexibility in the application of standards and for pool owners to have greater personal responsibility for determining that their backyard pools or spas are safe.
The Australian Standards were seen as too precise for easy application to many existing pools where the pool is often integral to the lifestyle of residents. While people want pools to be safe, they also want to be allowed to set up their backyard to suit their lifestyle. It is a lot easier to incorporate fencing where a new pool is installed than where there has been a pool for many years.
For a law to be widely applied and enforced, there must be a high level of acceptance by the community. It is our responsibility, as law makers, to ensure that the legislation we put forward reflects community values and standards. It is not sensible to try to force the community to do something to which they have a strong objection. It has become clear that the current level of standard and method of operation of the current Swimming Pool Fencing Act is not acceptable for existing pools and, in general, unacceptable to the majority of the community.
The review makes a series of recommendations for change to the legislation and its operation. Key recommendations propose:
a new standard for pools constructed prior to January 2003 that maintains the principle of ensuring that there
is an effective barrier in place for children under five years of age, but allows pool owners to make their own
assessment of the level of compliance;
maintains the application of the Australian Standards, as modified, to suit Territory conditions to pools constructed
since 2003;
the move to an essentially advisory role rather than an inspectorial role for pre-2003 pools in the implementation of
the revised system;
the extension of the grants system to give people more time to upgrade their pools to either the new standard or the
modified Australian Standard, with an increased amount available to encourage pool owners to upgrade to the modified Australian Standard;
a continuing marketing campaign aimed at providing factual information to the community and target groups; and
the purchaser and vendor of a property will be able to jointly or individually declare there is no pool on a property.
The government has accepted the findings of the review and the Swimming Pool Safety Bill gives effect to the recommendations that have been accepted. The strategy that underpins the Swimming Pool Safety Bill is straightforward:
all pools on premises under 1.8 hectares constructed since January 2003 must have barriers that comply with the
Australian Standard as modified for use in the Northern Territory;
all pools on premises under 1.8 hectares constructed prior to January 2003 must meet either a defined Community
Safety Standard or the modified Australian Standard at the time of sale or lease;
pool owners will be able to make a declaration that their pool meets the Community Safety Standard - there will be
no automatic inspection, however, pool owners will be able to seek advice from pool safety advisors if they wish;
there will be significant financial incentives provided to those who upgrade to the Community Safety Standard or the
modified Australian Standard; and
ongoing information and awareness campaigns relating to the maintenance of pool safety standards by pool owners
and water safety education and awareness.
The bill before the House proposes the repeal and replacement of the Swimming Pool Fencing Act. While many of the provisions of the act remain, repeal and replacement will provide a tidier, more easily understood piece of legislation. The bill I am presenting today strikes an effective balance between protecting young children and community acceptance of child water safety responsibility. I believe that this approach will generate the community support necessary for it to be effective.
I will now turn to some of the key provisions of the bill. As I indicated before, the overall aim of the legislation is for improved swimming pool fencing standards to give those who care for children more time to react to prevent a child drowning. The legislation will apply to the fencing of outdoor swimming pools and spas in the Territory. The legislation will not apply to public swimming pools, dams or waterways, or to pools located on land occupied by the Crown, statutory corporations, councils, or the Jabiru Town Development Authority unless the property is used solely for residential purposes.
The majority of definitions are similar to those which they replace. The bill will continue to have the same coverage as the act that is being replaced, and the meaning of ‘swimming pool’ remains essentially the same. It should be noted that the definition of ‘swimming pool’ now excludes a pool that is within a building, provided that all points of access to the house have doors, gates or windows that are self-closing and self-latching. The meaning of ‘swimming pool barrier’ now allows for the prescription of things that might be a barrier.
All new pools constructed after 1 January 2003 must comply with either the Australian Standards as modified, or a non-standard safety provision, both of which will continue to require the approval of the Pool Safety Authority for new pools. Owners who wish to seek compliance under the non-standard safety provision must first seek approval in advance of construction. Existing pools must be at the Community Safety Standard at the time of sale or lease.
A significant change to the Australian Standards is made in these provisions in that a neighboring property will no longer affect the compliance of a pool owner’s backyard pool or spa. Where a barrier is comprised of a fence shared with a neighbour, there is a requirement that the owners or occupiers of the neighbouring property be advised that the shared fence will be utilised as part of the barrier to the pool. A pool owner should only be responsible for their own backyard. Likewise, a neighbour should be responsible for making their own determinations about the safety of their backyards. Pool owners have made it clear over the last 12 months, and through the review process, that they want greater personal responsibility for the safety of their backyards. People who have small children on their premises, or have them visiting, are responsible for taking sensible precautions to ensure that their backyard remains safe. Where the danger next door is a pool, the neighbour will have that brought to their attention.
The implementation of the Community Safety Standard will provide for an effective barrier which must be designed, constructed, sited and maintained to prevent a child obtaining unsupervised access to the pool. This principle will be applied in a manner that is practicable and reasonable in the circumstances. Guidelines for the application of the Community Safety Standard will be specified by regulation. As stated previously, provision made under the current act for non-standard safety provisions will continue to apply.
A financial assistance scheme to assist and encourage existing pool owners to upgrade their barriers to either comply with the Community Safety Standard or the modified Australian Standard will also be prescribed under this bill. It is currently proposed that the government will provide a cash grant of up to 75% of the cost of upgrading or installing a fence to a maximum of $3000 for the Community Safety Standard, and $4000 for the modified Australian Standard. The new grant scheme will provide pool owners with a significant incentive to ensure their pool complies with the new legislation sooner rather than later. Not only is this an extremely generous incentive, it should be noted that the Territory is still the only jurisdiction in Australia to offer financial assistance of any sort to off-set the costs of achieving regulated standards. This clearly highlights our government’s commitment to improving pool safety throughout the Territory.
The government believes that the new grant scheme is the best method to maximise compliance by pool owners with the standards as quickly as possible. In keeping with this, we also intend to reward those who have already done the right thing and upgraded their pools. We will ensure that anyone who received assistance under the Early Registration Incentive Scheme will be no worse off than if they had waited and received assistance under the Safe Pool Grant Scheme.
In regards to compliance certificates and acknowledgement notices, significant changes have been made to the provisions that previously applied to this area. Essentially, the changes are:
that the Community Safety Standard will constitute the base minimum standard applicable to pools constructed
prior to January 2003;
compliance with the Community Safety Standard will be assessed by the pool owner and a declaration made in
an approved form;
declarations must be provided to the Pool Safety Authority which will then provide the pool owner with a
declaration acknowledgement notice;
all pools constructed since 1 January 2003 will require a certificate from the authority attesting to compliance
with the modified Australian Standards or the non-standard safety provision; and
there will be a compulsory inspection regime for new pools only.
The new declaration system for owners of pre-exiting backyard pools or spas reflects the community demand for greater responsibility. I note that the opposition appear out of step with the community on this issue.
Mr Dunham: Oh, really?
Mr AH KIT: This is unusual for a conservative party which normally supports the principle of community responsibility. The member for Drysdale has been reported as making comments that the declaration system will increase a pool owner’s liability. This is deceptive and misleading. Under any pool fencing regime, individual circumstances have always dictated liability. Pool owners who declare in good faith that their pool complies with the Community Safety Standard will not be any more liable now than they have been in the past under any under an inspectorial regime. Any statements to the contrary are reprehensible and made solely to stir up fear in the community.
Madam Speaker, no pool owner should be worried about signing a declaration form if they believe they are acting in good faith. If they are unsure about the effectiveness of their barriers, or not sure if they correctly understand the Community Safety Guidelines, they can seek free advice from a Pool Safety Advisor.
With the introduction of the new Community Safety Standard as the base standard pre-exiting pools must meet when selling or leasing, there is no longer a need for pool owners to register their pools against the previous council standard. The process of registration has been replaced by a system of compliance. For those people who have registered their pools with the Pool Fencing Unit over the last 12 months, we will advise them what the changes mean to them. For those people who have registered new pools constructed after 1 January 2003 we will refund their registration fee.
For pools installed after 1 January 2003, we have always required that the modified Australian Standards be met. This has not changed in this bill. The policy intent remains the same and the modified Australian Standard continues to provide the benchmark for appropriate safety standards within the Territory.
The bill provides for the issue of interim compliance certificates for new pools and requires pool owners and installers not to construct a pool until after an interim certificate is issued. Compliance certificates to the modified Australian Standard will be compulsory for all new pools and pools installed after 1 January 2003. These compliance certificates will only be issued following a satisfactory assessment by a Pool Safety Advisor.
The bill also provides for increased personal responsibility for existing pool owners. Pool owners will be able to declare that their pool barrier complies with the new Community Safety Standard. Upon declaration, a pool owner will receive an acknowledgement notice from the authority, which can be used to allow lease or sale of a property. Pool Safety Advisors will be available to provide free advice and recommendations to assist people in understanding, reaching and maintaining the new Community Safety Standard.
In regard to the sale or residential leasing of premises with swimming pools, as I indicated when I announced this review, we want to make the pool fencing process simpler and workable. Of particular concern previously was the sale, transfer or lease of premises with swimming pools. The following issues have been addressed in this bill:
inconsistency in application of the law to pools located on common property, that is, unit complexes;
a provisional compliance certificate will now be sufficient to allow the transfer of title as would be required
in the case of a marital split or separation, death in the family or removal of CEO Housing from NT government
home loans;
a provisional compliance certificate will be available to allow a purchaser to assume responsibility for upgrading
a pool to the appropriate standard within a set period of time; and
no-pool inspections to be replaced by a joint declaration to be signed by purchaser and vendor.
As with the current act, the point of sale and residential lease of a property will be retained as triggers for compliance. However, existing pool owners will now have the option to comply with either the Community Safety Standard or the modified Australian Standard to satisfy this requirement. Pools on common properties such as within a unit complex will be required to comply within six months of sale of a unit within the complex.
In regards to the obligations related to swimming pools, the bill adopts a long-term approach to increased pool fencing standards and includes provisions to ensure that once achieved, compliance with the relevant standard is maintained. The bill also provides comfort for councils by ensuring they are not liable if a boundary fence that separates private property and council land is used as part of the barrier.
In the administration, there is power to delegate functions under this bill to local governing bodies and others. Whilst this is not planned at this time, it may be considered in the future following the establishment of an effective system.
It should also be noted that this bill refers to Pool Safety Advisors rather than Pool Fencing Inspectors, as in the current act. This name change reflects the different role that staff will undertake in the future, providing a greater emphasis on pool safety advice and education rather than pool fencing direction.
Mr Dunham: They can still kick the doors down.
Mr AH KIT: You can’t help yourself.
Madam Speaker, the bill continues to provide for powers of entry and inspection for Pool Safety Advisors, and these remain balanced with the requirement for a Justice to issue a search warrant. Previous debate concerning the entry and enforcement provisions of the current act has, at times, bordered on the ridiculous. Let me pre-empt such a discussion this time by stating that these are standard provisions common in Northern Territory legislation, which provides for inspector-type functions, for example, Environmental Health or Building Board inspectors. It is important to note that despite the hysteria of the opposition during last year’s committee stage debate, in the 12 months the current act has been operating not once have we had to call upon these provisions.
In regard to reviews and appeals, the appeal process has been reviewed and modified. The Review Committee, established under the current act, will be retained, however, a second tier appeal to the Lands and Mining Tribunal is no longer considered necessary. During the 12 months’ operation of the Swimming Pool Fencing Act 2002, not one appeal was heard by the Review Committee. It is clear that most difficulties can be resolved by administrative processes through the Pool Safety Unit, the Pool Safety Authority, with a further avenue of appeal open through retention of the Review Committee.
In regard to miscellaneous areas in the bill, regulations will be prescribed under the bill to provide for matters that are necessary for carrying out or giving effect to this act. Initially, this will include detailing the new Community Safety Standard and the new financial scheme, called the Safe Pool Grant. The passage of this bill will result in the repeal and replacement of the Swimming Pool Fencing Act 2002.
We appreciate the substantial nature of the changes proposed in this bill. However, they are both important and necessary to achieve a safer environment for children around backyard swimming pools. A widespread public education and community awareness campaign will be conducted prior to the new laws coming into effect. In addition, there will be an ongoing water safety education and awareness program to ensure the community does not become complacent about issues of water safety.
There will be some who will inevitably describe this legislation as a back-flip by the government. Me do a back-flip? I would like to see that!
We have listened to the community and responded by bringing our legislation into line with community expectations on pool safety and personal responsibility. There is no question that the pool laws had to be revisited after the experiences of the last 12 months. What I am introducing today is sensible, more workable legislation. It allows for a greater uniform application of commonsense and provides for more flexibility, while still ensuring that there are effective barriers in place around backyard pools and spas to protect our children.
The principle behind the legislation I am introducing has strong community support. The opposition has indicated that they believe pool fencing is not an issue. The former Leader of the Opposition stated this as recently as 6 February on ABC’s Stateline program, and I quote …
The simple truth is that this government, unlike our predecessors, is not so arrogant as to not admit our mistakes. In the case of pool fencing …
Mr Dunham: You were going to quote it. Where is the quote? You said: ‘And I quote’.
Mr AH KIT: Well, you saw the program.
Mr DUNHAM: No, I want to hear the quote. Because we know what you blokes are like at plagiarising.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr AH KIT: You saw the program.
Madam SPEAKER: Keep talking to me, minister.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, Madam Speaker. It is very hard not to pick up on interjections …
Madam SPEAKER: I know it is hard.
Mr AH KIT: … from the rude member for Drysdale because he just cannot help himself. I went through the process this morning and explained some of the history to this, which you find hard because you were sitting in the room as, no doubt, a Cabinet minister, so you have your grubby hands all over the historical nature of how this legislation has come about. I watched with interest, because it was not the Leader of the Opposition …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have a convention that has been established in this House that the minister distributes his second reading speech and sticks to the text of that speech.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Minister, please stick to your second reading speech.
Mr AH KIT: I will go back to the second reading speech, and I will not be long because I will not pick up on any interjections or be railroaded by the rude member for Drysdale. Yes, I was going to quote, I am not quoting now, I am going back to what the former Leader of the Opposition stated as recently as 6 February on the ABC Stateline program.
The simple truth is that this government, unlike our predecessors, is not so arrogant as to not admit our mistakes. In the case of pool fencing, our objectives were, and remain, ones of protecting our children. This government heeded the call for uniformity and a standard legislation to protect the most vulnerable in our community. While the opposition has argued that swimming pool fencing legislation should lie with local government and there is no need for uniformity, the Darwin City Council, in its response to the 1996 inquest, stated:
We now seek to engage with them in their support of a greater level of personal responsibility in attaining and maintaining safety around residential pools. We are not walking away from the difficulties of pool fencing legislation as the previous government did for many years, and at the cost of those lives. In fact, in the Department of Local Government Annual Report 1998-99, I bring to members’ notice that under ‘Legislative Change’ they have three dot points. I would like to read them into the Hansard:
introduce and implement new animal welfare legislation;
introduce amendments to the Local Government Act.
That supports the claims that I have made in the introduction of this bill.
I am pleased to bring this legislation to the Assembly. It is about providing our children with a safer community - something, as I have said before, the opposition never did. I am happy to roll up my sleeves and do the hard work that they did not want to at the time. It is likely that the CLP will, predictably, attempt to play politics with the legislation, to their shame. They know they should have acted on this years ago but did not, and they know it will be legislation that they now cannot turn their backs on. They should actively and constructively engage with the process and support legislation that will save lives.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MINING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 191)
Continued from 26 November 2003.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. It is a fairly straight-forward piece of legislation we have before us, and its ambitions are laudable because they flow from National Competition Principles. In a nutshell, they look to set minimum areas of blocks for explorers and they look also to identify that the minerals that are located on that block by the explorer are not distinguished in such a way so that the explorer has to reapply.
I applaud both of those. In fact, I worked under a previous Mining Act where gold was a distinguishing mineral from every other mineral, for instance, as was quarrying for sand and in latter years, so too was uranium. So these minerals took on a life of their own. They had different restrictions, and a different legislative basis for their exploration and mining. I always thought it was a bit silly, particularly in polymetalic provinces such as the Pine Creek geosink line. It is obvious to everybody who ever looks at any of the minerals that come out of there that many, many minerals of an economic basis can be mined. That includes silver, lead, zinc, gold, chromium, and a variety of other minerals.
It is a laudable practice that there should be no distinguishing features about the type of mineral and neither should there be the minister’s requirement to look to larger sizes of block for exploration.
I will point out that it does stick in one’s neck a bit in a small jurisdiction like this to have National Competition Principles come to us to deal with what are really pretty small things when you look at the big issues for mining. When you look at the big issues for mining, this jurisdiction is discriminated against. It is discriminated in the legislation which applies here and the principles which apply here that do not apply anywhere else. Members will not be surprised if I mention the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, an act which definitely impedes mining in this part of the world and definitely does not apply in any other part of Australia. I would think that while we are on the business of level playing fields and making sure that Territory miners have the same basis for exploration and harvesting of their resources elsewhere, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act should come up with a beacon.
It is interesting, too, that the uranium we mine here is different to the uranium that is mined in other places in Australia - in South Australia, there are different legislative regimes - and so too the Crown ownership of minerals. If we really want to talk about National Competition Principles, the cross hairs of our sights should look federally rather than nationally.
I applaud what the minister is doing here. It has come out a good commonsense. I would ask that on behalf of the mining industry that he look at some of these issues, and that he look at rendering the mining industry in the Northern Territory, which is our biggest earner, to be able to compete with those interstate, particularly when it comes to issues like access to Aboriginal land, uranium and Crown ownership of minerals.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his support for this legislation. It is commonsense legislation, removing the restriction for mining and exploration and mineral leases, and not specifying any particular area that miners or mining companies can explore or get mining leases, and also removing restriction of what minerals they can mine in their mineral leases.
What the member said about the National Competition provisions is true. Unfortunately we live in a regime that tends to remove any anti-competitive practices and we have to live with it. As for access to land and the restriction of the Land Rights Act, I want to remind the member that just recently an American company managed to get an agreement with the Northern Land Council under the right to negotiate process in order to obtain access to a significant large area of land south of Larrimah, and between Larrimah and Elliott. When I questioned the Northern Land Council on how the company had the managed to proceed so quickly, they advised me that the American company was very experienced in negotiating with native interests in New Mexico, with American Indians, and they only had to tick certain boxes on their forms. They proceeded to negotiate this successful agreement with the Northern Land Council and the native title holders. It is not impossible to negotiate if there is goodwill with all parties.
I thank again the member for his support. It is a commonsense piece of legislation, and certainly will help the mining companies and the people who are involved in mineral exploration to achieve their target.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, few developments in Australian history have captured the public imagination like the building of the AustralAsia Trade Route, and very few have been so long in the making. We finally have the link that connects Darwin to the rest of the country by rail and the Northern Territory to the rest of the world through our port.
Today, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the thousands of people who shared the dream: the railway workers, the business men and women, the public servants, the politicians and members of the wider Australian community who have played a role in realising this dream of more than 100 years.
As all present would know, South Australians and Territorians have been lobbying for the completion of a transcontinental railway for over a century. The first sod was turned in Port Augusta in 1878. By 1929, railway lines extended as far north as Alice Springs, and, from Darwin, about 500 km south to Larrimah. When South Australia handed control of the Territory to the Commonwealth in 1911, it was in return for a promise to complete the railway. Since Self-Government in 1978, all Territory Chief Ministers have fought to remind the Commonwealth of this promise. It was our first Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, who led the ‘Act of Faith’ campaign. Another among the visionaries was former Minister for the Railway, Barry Coulter, who worked with former Under Treasurer, Dr Neil Conn, and the Railway Executive Group to progress the project. Senior public servants including Paul Tyrrell, then Director of Roads in the Department of Transport and Works, and Larry Bannister worked on the railway project from those early days.
Many groups and individuals from the time of Self-Government undertook studies to progress the railway. This included work by David Hill, the Railway Executive Group, and Canadian Pacific Consulting Services. But it was the Wran Report in 1985 that restored the confidence of Territorians when it found that the railway was not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’.
In the early days of Australian transport, railways were built by governments. These days, the private sector is taking over the role of providing major infrastructure, so for many years, the Northern Territory government tried to woo private sector investors to build the line. Staff of the former Department of Transport and Works provided the analysis that supported the economics of the railway as well as highlighting the benefits to the Territory of linking to the national railway grid.
It was clear that the railway would be built only with government support, recognising the many economic benefits not directly captured by the private sector. In 1996, the Northern Territory government first articulated its vision for Darwin to develop as a multi-modal transport and logistics hub with the new railway as a key plank in that vision. Also at that time, a report by Booz Allen & Hamilton reported a positive cost-benefit ratio of 1.27 in favour of the railway project as a result of the Territory’s increased population, economic activity and freight task.
In 1997, the South Australian and Northern Territory governments established the AustralAsia Rail Corporation after Prime Minister John Howard pledged $100m to match the Territory and South Australian contributions.
Following the Commonwealth agreement to transfer the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line, the scope of the project, a new transport system, became the transfer of the Tarcoola line; the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin line; and the integration of the railway with an inter-modal facility at the new East Arm Wharf in Darwin.
In September 1997, the project was taken to the marketplace as a Build Own Operate and Transfer back development. The resulting 32 expressions of interest provided great confidence in the project. Three short-listed bidders were announced in April 1998: the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium led by Kellogg Brown & Root; the Southern Cross Consortium led by Henry & Walker; and the Northlink Rail Consortium led by Thiess.
Other milestones reached in 1998 were, the berthing of the first ship at Darwin’s new East Arm wharf, and the reaching of an agreement between the Territory government and land councils after 18 months of negotiations on the railway corridor. In June 1999, after detailed evaluation, the Northern Territory and South Australian governments announced the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium as the preferred consortium.
In October 1999, after months of negotiations, the financial terms for the project were settled. The Northern Territory and Commonwealth increased their financial contributions to $165m each and the South Australian government increased its contribution to $150m. This covered part of the shortfall between the preferred consortium’s proposal and the $300m government funding, with the consortium making up the difference. In March 2000, the federal Treasurer approved third party access for a 30 year regime under the National Competition requirements of the Trade Practices Act 1974 overcoming a major impediment to the greenfields project.
On 18 October 2000, the AustralAsia Railway Corporation, the Northern Territory and South Australian governments, and the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium signed an agreement on the commercial terms for the project. There was a major setback in January 2001 when the Hancock Group, a major investor, pulled out of the project, but in March 2001, the three governments agreed on a support package on commercial terms of $79.2m in addition to the already agreed $480m.
The AustralAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly in November 1999, and dealt with a range of matters arising from the due diligence process and planning and construction issues. April 2001 was an historic time, when financial close was reached for the project in Sydney with the signing of more than 300 documents involving 60 parties, with debt and equity finance of about $800m provided by the private sector.
Construction began immediately, coordinated by the consortium’s design and construct body ADrail, with a completion target of April 2004. Prime Minister John Howard, South Australian Premier John Olsen, Territory Chief Minister Denis Burke and Franco Moretti from the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium turned the first sod in Alice Springs on the 17 July 2001, one of those perishingly cold Alice Springs days.
At this point I would like to make special acknowledgement of past government Chief Ministers, and Railway Minister, Barry Coulter, for their dedication and commitment over all those years. To Paul Everingham, Ian Tuxworth, Steve Hatton, Marshall Perron, Shane Stone and to Denis Burke, the former Chief Minister during the last two critical years of negotiations, for reaching that milestone.
As we know, construction remained well ahead of schedule, with a series of milestones demonstrating the enormous power of modern railway construction methods. The first track was laid near Katherine in April 2002. In December 2002, track laying was completed between Tennant Creek and Katherine. In December 2002, the Elizabeth River Bridge, the longest of the six major bridges, was completed and, in September 2003, track laying was completed at East Arm Wharf.
Two million sleepers were laid in record time, over 90 minor and major bridges were built; 146 000 tonnes of rail was carried from OneSteel’s Whyalla plant and 2.8m tonnes of ballast were carried from Katherine and Tennant Creek quarries. Mini-townships appeared and disappeared along the line as modern railway camps marked the progress of construction. And, of course, the realisation of our dreams occurred when the completion certificate was issued by the Independent Certifier on 14 January, in accordance with the Concession Deed between AustralAsia Rail Corporation and the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium.
This railway will open up the north, provide a trade link between Asia and Southern Australia, and boost our economy - not to forget the romance of the greatest train journey of the world in the Ghan. The third one has just arrived at the terminal in Darwin.
I now turn to the historic arrival of the first freight train in Darwin from Adelaide on 17 January. The commencement of commercial operations on the AustralAsia Railway was celebrated with a range of festivities, commencing with the departure from Adelaide on 15 January, where a crowd of 3000 gathered to see the freight train depart on its inaugural journey to Darwin. An enthusiastic crowd of about 1000 greeted the train on its arrival into Alice Springs on 16 January, and a symbolic consignment of Central Australian bush tucker was dispatched on the journey through to Darwin amidst a spectacular water arch send off. The community took advantage of every vantage point to witness the historic passage of the train through the hills to the north of the town.
A huge crowd of 1000 greeted the train at Tennant Creek, on the evening of the 16th where, as part of community celebrations, the FreightLink terminal, called Wakapikari, was officially opened. As a gesture of goodwill to the local community, the original art work of local artist Ruth Dawson, which is featured on one of the FreightLink locomotives, was presented by FreightLink to be displayed at the Arts Council.
The community event conducted at Katherine on the morning of Friday 17th was well attended. I believe about 4000 people from Katherine were there. The freight terminal was officially opened, and artist, Rocque Lee, provided an explanation of the art work featured on the ‘Kurra Kurraka’ locomotive, which is associated with the northern region.
The arrival of the inaugural train at the FreightLink port container terminal was witnessed by a huge crowd of more than 10 000 people who gathered early in the day to be part of the celebrations. The on-site amenities accommodated the large crowd, and family entertainment provided activities in the lead-up to the formal proceedings . The venue afforded the opportunity for the public to witness the arrival of the train in safety, and to view magnificent livery of the locomotives from close quarters.
I congratulate the organisers for delivering an event which enabled so many to participate in this part of history. Particularly noteworthy is the effort of the team from Top End Sounds to provide the infrastructure following the unfortunate incident just a week earlier. The capability of Territorians under adverse conditions was yet again demonstrated by this outstanding achievement. I thank all the volunteers who generously provided their time at the various events to ensure the safety and comfort of those in attendance.
It is important to acknowledge the disappointment felt by a number of Territorians because the first train arrived early. To those Territorians who did miss the event, let me say how sorry I was that not everyone was able to see the arrival. However, I also want to say that all Territorians can celebrate the surge of pride we all so rightly felt when the train arrived.
To the regional committees who coordinated community events, I say thank you for ensuring the celebrations reflected the significance of the railway to each community. The government’s thanks also goes to the Darwin Bus Service and the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment staff who worked to ensure that the crowd were efficiently transported to and from the venue, and to the NT Police who assisted with traffic control and site security. The manner in which the large crowd was managed without injury is testament to the organisation of the event. A special thank you goes to the event coordinating committee, the staff of Protocol and the AustralAsia Railway Corporation. I also want to thank the public for their well natured tolerance, patience and courtesy shown at times when inconvenienced by the consequences of such an enthusiastic response to this historic event.
Just over two weeks later from this event was when the inaugural Adelaide to Darwin Ghan passenger train rolled into Darwin on Tuesday, 3 February 2004. It signalled the start of another new era - this time one of the great opportunities for Territory tourism operators to develop new market opportunities and products. In keeping with the significance of the Ghan passenger service to the Territory, celebratory events were scheduled by Great Southern Rail as the commercial operator in Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Darwin.
My department and the Australasia Railway Corporation also arranged for safe public viewing areas in Alice Springs and the Darwin region to ensure as many Territorians as possible could see the Ghan on its inaugural journey. Of course, many Territorians made their own arrangements to see the Ghan at vantage points all the way from Alice Springs to Darwin, while the celebrations in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin were also attended by thousands of Territorians. The arrival of the Ghan into Darwin on 3 February was a truly historic and memorable occasion.
The successful completion of this historic transcontinental railway could not have been achieved without the commitment and determination of the board, corporation staff, advisers, Territory and South Australian public servants, the three governments, and the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium. Behind these milestones lie an enormous number of hard work and some incredible achievements.
I pay tribute to the unsung heroes of the railway who helped delivered the project. A dedicated team at the AustralAsia Railway Corporation under the leadership of Paul Tyrrell, with the support of Larry Bannister and Alastair Shields, and external advisers and specialists, carved out the negotiations with other governments and the consortium.
The Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, under the leadership of David Ritchie, helped identify sites of significance along the corridor and worked with the government and indigenous communities to ensure their appropriate protection. Close working relationships were developed across government and with the Territory Construction Association, NTISO, and training bodies to maximise local benefits from the project with a local industry and Aboriginal participation plan. The Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development ran training courses for Territory businesses to help with tendering and identification of business opportunities. In excess of 90% of the value of works was awarded to Northern Territory and South Australian companies.
I acknowledge the efforts of David Avery, John Roberts and Ron Levy, who were the principle representatives acting on behalf of traditional owners during negotiations for the acquisition of the 1420 km of land for the railway corridor. The outcomes of these negotiations included the historic Aboriginal Land Agreement, mentioned before. I also thank the team which acted for the government during those 18 months of negotiations. Likewise, I acknowledge the pastoralists and land-holders for helping to make this dream a reality.
Indigenous organisations, particularly the Northern and Central Land Councils, worked with ADrail to ensure indigenous people received accredited training and jobs. One of the most encouraging legacies of the railway is that of the 1450 construction staff and subcontractors working in the field, 130 indigenous Territorians worked on the railway. For this I thank people such as Dave Malone, then with the Territory Construction Association, Bob Cush and Bob Collins from ADrail and liaison staff such as Sean Lange from the Northern Territory Land Council.
Staff from the now Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment helped with engineering studies, land acquisition, port design, identification and protection of heritage sites, surveys and engineering challenges. And going further back in history, people such as former Railway Commissioner, Keith Smith, who always said the rail should be built, and Chief Civil Engineer, Des Smith, who built the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line and surveyed the remaining corridor.
I also thank members of the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium, Halliburton KBR, John Holland, Barclay Mowlem, Macmahon, Genesee & Wyoming - later Australian Railroad Group - and PGA Logistics – later SANT - for their belief in this project, as well as their financiers, planners and construction supervisors for delivering this project three months ahead of time.
In particular, I thank Malcolm Kinniard for his chairmanship of the consortium, who, together with Andrew Fletcher, demonstrated a determined commitment to this public/private sector partnership and resolved a myriad of issues which otherwise could have been an impediment to progressing negotiations.
The construction of the new railway by ADrail saw outstanding progress under the leadership of project director, Al Volpe, ably assisted by construction manager, Kevyn Brown, and Bob Collins and Duncan Beggs who ensured the task of community liaison was given a high priority. Bob Kuch in his capacity as construction superintendent for Asia Pacific Transport, and Franco Moretti as Chief Executive Officer of both Asia Pacific Transport and FreightLink, oversaw the delivery of the infrastructure for this new trade route. Now, Bruce McGowan has embraced the task of making the vision of a major new trade route become a reality. Also critical to the construction of the rail was the role of Brendan Lawson, the Deputy CEO of ARC, the body responsible for overseeing the Territory and South Australia’s governments’ interest in the rail.
There are many many people to be thanked for their contribution, but in particular, I thank those Territory public servants who made significant contributions in a wide variety of capacities. I acknowledge, in addition to those I have already mentioned:
all the staff, past and present, of the AustralAsia Railway Corporation, including Larry Bannister, Brendan Lawson,
Brian O’Gallagher, Maureen Albion, Margo Bellis, Andrew Kirkman, Reg Walters, Sam Hatzivalsamis, Celia Lowry,
Robin Luke, Taryn Long, Kylie Bell, Josephine McGill, John Harris, David Timbrell, Sybille Brautigam, Jane Munday,
Libby Beath, Tracy Jones, Tiffany Stodart and Jim Colvin;
DIPE staff, past and present: Chris Bigg, Ken Hornsby, Dave McHugh, John Pinney, Manfred Rusciska, Ken Grattan,
John Gronow, Neville Jones, Bonnie Kappler-Thompson, Phil Cross, Sue Hakala, David Ritchie, David Jeffrey,
Bev Griffiths, Paul Wharam, Noreen Blakley, Vic Stephens, Helge Pedersen, Steve Sutton, Kae Anderson, Leah Croke,
David Rolland, Ian Charman, Mike Makepeace, Bob Pemble, Graham Newhouse and Barbara Singer;
other public servants who contributed greatly included Barry Chambers, Jennifer Prince, Peter Caldwell, Captain John
Butler, Barry Berwick, Garry Scanlan, and Captain Bruce Wilson of the Darwin Port Corporation; John Baskerville,
Dianne Burbidge, John Carroll, Linny Thom, Shaun O’Sullivan and Enzo Matarazzo;
I also extend my deepest appreciation to the Board of the AustralAsia Railway Corporation for their untiring efforts,
in particular the Chairman, Rick Allert and John Crosby, Otto Alder and Jim Hallion;
thanks also to specialist advisors from Clayton Utz, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deutsche Bank.; and
my special thanks to Paul Tyrrell, Chief Executive of my department and also of the AustralAsia Railway Corporation,
for his leadership, expertise, persistence and commitment from the early concept and planning phase through to
completion of construction. If you had to single out one person who contributed to the rail – it is always difficult,
of course - but you would be hard pressed to go past Paul Tyrrell. This Territory owes him an enormous vote of thanks.
I know I have named a lot of people, but while I have not been able to name everyone, I do thank you all for your contributions, great and small, to this major Australian infrastructure project.
Madam Speaker, the arrival of the first freight train on 17 January signalled the commencement of fully fledged operations of the new AustralAsia Railway and a new domestic supply route for the Territory. Importantly, it also signalled the availability of a new and alternative international trading route for the nation that we will seek to grow from essentially a zero base to a target of 50 000 international containers or equivalent tonnage over the next three years. We know this is an ambitious challenge, but are fully committed to achieving it.
The Territory, and Darwin in particular, has the opportunity to develop as a supply, service and distribution centre of regional significance, creating new employment and business opportunities. South Australia also stands to benefit through the availability of an alternative trading route to its export markets in north and south-east Asia.
Regarding the domestic freight task, FreightLink, the private sector operator of the new rail service, has publicly announced that it expects to carry 350 000 tonnes of freight in its first year of operation, ramping up to 800 000 tonnes of freight per annum over the next few years. The recent announcement that FreightLink has signed contracts with two of the major domestic freight forwarders to shift a substantial proportion of their freight volumes on the new rail service is firm evidence that these targets can be achieved.
The Scott Group of Companies, through their wholly owned subsidiary, Northern Territory Freight Services, has committed to move a minimum of 120 000 tonnes of freight per annum between Adelaide and Darwin. Likewise, FCL, one of Australia’s largest rail-based freight fowarders, has fully committed to the new service. These contracts represent a huge vote of confidence by the private sector in the future success of the line’s freight service. I also understand that FreightLink is currently negotiating with the major fuel companies who account for approximately 30% of the domestic freight task, about the option of using rail.
My government is actively pursuing a program of strategic and coordinated initiatives to gain the medium-term spin-off benefits from the new rail and port projects that we all desire, including:
increased international trade by the port of Darwin;
increased and more frequent international shipping connections between the Territory and Asia;
development of value-adding industries in the Territory that can piggy-back on the growth of this new trade;
and importantly, the realisation of new development, employment and investment opportunities for our regional centres.
Let me now update members on our progress and plans to achieve each of these goals. The growth of new import and export trade through the port of Darwin and via the new AustralAsia Trade Route is a fundamental medium-term objective of this government. As mentioned previously, our challenging target as laid down in the Economic Development Strategy is to secure 50 000 containers or equivalent tonnage of new international freight after the first three years of rail operations. Having said that, we must accept that this will be an evolving development with the early years being a particular challenge.
As a precursor to getting any international customers to make a fundamental decision to move their freight along the new AustralAsia Trade Route, FreightLink will have to demonstrate that they can successfully operate a reliable and efficient domestic rail service. The Territory government continues to work with, and in advance of, FreightLink and other strategic partners to capture this new international freight.
My government, in conjunction with FreightLink and the South Australian government, is actively working to secure base load customers over the next few years who individually can deliver some 200 000 to 300 000 tonnes of new freight to the railway. These customers include base metal exporters located in South Australia, the automotive industry, and new mineral developments in the Territory.
During my investment mission to Melbourne in November last year, I met with a senior executive of one of these base load customers, Stuart Hall, General Manager of Business Development, Western Mining Corporation, who confirmed that the new trade route was definitely an option his company would consider as a future means of getting their product to export markets throughout Asia.
Furthermore, last December I met with the CEO of one of Australia’s largest retailers which imports over 10 000 containers of clothing and electronic goods into Australia each year. The company sees potential in moving some of this trade via the new AustralAsia trade route, and has agreed to work directly with the Office of Territory Development to assess the feasibility of doing so. A complementary strategy is aimed at incremental growth and targets medium and small volume importers and exporters who can see the potential of the new trade route. For example, during my Asian investment mission last year, we identified and made contact with a number of companies who individually export 1000 or 2000 containers of freight to Melbourne per annum. Some of these companies, such as Linfox in Malaysia, and Sembcorp Logistics in Singapore, came to Darwin this month as part of Global Freight Connect 2004 to progress discussions with FreightLink and the Territory government about the viability of sending their freight via the new trade route.
Success in capturing high volume base load cargos, along with this incremental growth, will deliver the freight volumes needed to sustain new or expanded international shipping connections with Darwin. To varying degrees, shipping companies can also influence how freight is moved and are therefore important stakeholders that we need to engage with. During the government’s Asian investment mission last year, representatives from the Office of Territory Development and the Darwin Port Corporation met with senior executives of a number of global and regional shipping lines at their head offices in Singapore and Hong Kong. It is clear that the strongest immediate interest in the new trade route option lies with some of the regional carriers, reflecting their eagerness to develop new trade flows. The global operators tend to take a more ‘wait and see’ approach and are probably more likely to get involved after trade volumes have been developed.
John Parkes from FreightLink visited Asia in December and followed up with some of the contacts made during my Asian investment mission. In January this year, the Territory’s Trade Minister, Paul Henderson, with support from the Office of Territory Development and FreightLink, led a delegation to Indonesia to promote the new AustralAsia trade route. As part of this visit, the delegation participated in a half day seminar hosted by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta that focussed on the opportunities associated with the new AustralAsia trade route. Over 150 representatives from the Indonesian import/export and international freight and shipping business community attended the seminar. Furthermore, a number of these Indonesian shipping representatives took the opportunity to come to Darwin for the Global Freight Connect Conference and to view our port and rail facilities first-hand.
Graeme Lacey, the CEO of local Territory company, Rooney Shipping, also participated in the delegation and took the opportunity to progress negotiations with a regional shipping line interested in establishing new shipping links into East Arm Wharf. As previously advised to the Assembly, on 10 November last year, Swires Shipping, a long standing and reputable international shipping line that have been operating out of Darwin for the last five years, commenced operation of a new NT express shuttle service between the East Arm Wharf and Singapore. This initiative by one of the world’s most respected shipping lines was driven by the company’s confidence that the new trade route will be successful in the medium term. This augurs well for the new trade route and is another key link between the Territory and the markets to our north.
Construction of the 50 hectare first stage of the Darwin Business Park is well advanced. This government has invested $11m, and that was revised up from $9m, in this strategic land development being built next to the rail marshalling yards at Berrimah. The new business park ideally complements our goal to develop the new AustralAsia trade route. Over the medium term, the Darwin Business Park is expected to serve freight forwarding, consolidation and distribution, cold storage, processing and packaging operations, as well as value-adding operations such as light assembly and manufacturing.
On 14 August, Australian’s leading transport and logistics company, Toll Holdings, commenced construction of a state-of-the-art consolidation and distribution facility in the park. Toll are rapidly progressing with the construction of these new facilities and are investing over $18m - that is up $1m from their original investment of $17m - in the development over four years. Many local Territory companies have already won contracts on the Toll development.
The Territory government’s Land Development Corporation is currently assessing expressions of interest received from organisations wishing to develop the remainder of the rail frontage blocks at the business park, and commercial negotiations are under way. Complementing the business park development, the government is conducting an international marketing campaign to attract new value-adding industries to the park over the medium term.
Last month, on 27 January, I had the pleasure in joining our local retail clothing company, Geminex, when they announced they are set to expand their operations after signing an agreement with Melbourne specialist scan packing company, Supply-LINQ. Under the agreement, called Supply-LINQ Northern Territory, Geminex will carry out value-adding packaging work on clothing shipped in from Asia and then transported south by rail. Supply-LINQ provides ‘floor ready’ merchandising services to major retailers such as Coles Myer, Grace Bros, Target, K-Mart, Big W, David Jones and Just Jeans. This agreement is a great example of how opportunities will arise for Territory companies on the back of the AustralAsia Railway and the new trade route. I was also pleased to note that Geminex has openly thanked this government for the work of the Office of Territory Development in cultivating Supply-LINQ’s interest in the new trade route, and introducing the two companies to each other last year.
The new trade route also offers opportunities for the Territory’s regional centres. Katherine and Tennant Creek will become natural railheads for freight distributed along the Victoria and Barkly Highways. The advent of the railway will also enhance their ability to become supply centres for the Territory’s agricultural and mining industries. For example, already bananas from Cooktown in Queensland are being sent to Tennant Creek by road, and being transported onto the railway for delivery to the Perth markets. Furthermore, horticultural exporters in the Ord River district in the west are now seriously looking at exporting their product via the new shipping services out of Darwin. Currently, they send this freight to the port at Fremantle.
The availability of the new trade route has also assisted new mineral developments in the Territory. Development of the Bootu Creek manganese mine near Tennant Creek, and the substantial export freight of 500 000 tonnes per annum, can be delivered to the new trade route. It is a high priority for this government and the local Tennant Creek community. My Office of Territory Development and the Darwin Port Corporation are working with the Bootu Creek developers to establish appropriate bulk handling facilities at East Arm, and we are extremely hopeful that the project will be operating later this year.
Whilst primarily a freight railway, substantial new tourism opportunities will arise for Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. The service will provide a steady stream of new passengers into Darwin year round, assisting the industry overcome seasonality constraints by providing a base level of tourists during the Wet Season. Additionally, the service provides an opportunity to attract new airlines into Darwin. We have already seen some positive results, with Australian Airlines due to start operations from Singapore to Darwin as from May this year. Various holiday packages have been developed by Trainways, Great Southern Railways’ holiday division, incorporating a variety of product offerings such as flights, accommodation, visits to attractions, national parks and tours, ensuring that the benefits of the rail are spread across a variety of tourism sectors and regions.
Territory Discoveries will distribute 15 000 copies of its new 2004-05 rail brochure to retail travel agents across Australia during February. The new Ghan service also provides the impetus for operators to upgrade facilities, which can provide benefit to the wider community. For example, we have seen Werner Sarny of Travel North investing in 10 new 61-seat Eurorider buses in the Katherine region, which will provide benefits both for passengers on the Ghan and to the community, as the buses will also be used on school routes.
Great Southern Rail reports that ticket sales for the Ghan to Darwin have now topped $20m, surpassing their highest expectation. The length of the passenger trains is being extended to fit in eager passengers, with trains well over 1 km in length expected. It is estimated that the Ghan will carry an extra 30 000 tourists per year, which translates into a direct and ongoing injection of $28m per annum into the Territory in direct visitor expenditure. This will support around 200 additional tourism jobs.
Madam Speaker, as you see, this government has already taken significant steps towards capturing new investment and trade opportunities for Territorians from the new AustralAsia Trade Route. We will continue to strengthen our market intelligence and business case development capacity to attract more shipping service and value-adding industries. In terms of shipping, our government has a clear objective of securing new shipping links between Darwin and North Asia over the new two years. We will do this in partnership with the South Australian government, FreightLink and other strategic partners.
Officials from the Northern Territory and South Australian governments, in conjunction with FreightLink, have developed an action plan for joint collaboration during 2004. The action plan focusses on joint marketing missions to Asia and major domestic markets, collaborative market research and analysis, business case development for base load customers and industries, and the attraction of new shipping services to Darwin.
The Premier of South Australia and I are committed to progressing our key priorities for 2004 including a joint marketing mission to China with FreightLink to pursue a Darwin/North Asia shipping link. Planning for such a mission in April this year is well under way. South Australia also participated in Global Freight Connect 2004, the international freight conference held earlier this month. Some of the biggest names in the Australian and regional trade freight and transport sector, including representatives from throughout Asia, flew into Darwin to address this high powered industry conference hosted by the Northern Territory government. I congratulate Brian O’Gallagher from the Office of Territory Development for his role in the success of this conference. According to the Sunday Territorian, to quote them:
We also took this opportunity to show the 180 international, national and local delegates our new port and rail facilities first-hand. Many have now gone back with a much more optimistic view of the new trade route.
The government is working with and in advance of FreightLink and other strategic partners to develop the new AustralAsia Trade Route over the next three years. We are working closely with the local Territory industry and, where appropriate, with the South Australian government to achieve this goal. Our immediate priorities include the further development of the Darwin Business Park; the development of a new international shipping connection between East Arm Wharf and Asia; the capture of base load international customers to generate new international traffic; the development of regional freight centres; and the facilitation of new mineral developments along the central corridor. The development of a North Asia shipping service is of particular priority for the development of a vibrant new trade route.
Madam Speaker, it is an exciting and uplifting vision of the future which I am sure all agree will be supported by all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the statement. With every stage of the railway, for those of us who had the opportunity to witness significant weldings of sections of rail out in the middle of the bush, there was a chance to meet again and again at different places, in Alice Springs, in Adelaide, and here in Darwin. We kept running into the same people and telling the same stories. The railway is a bit of infrastructure that seems to attract a lot of interest and a collection of people who seem to be strangely fascinated by the railway. We were all captured by the magic of rail. I guess, when trying to understand why it is that people become so focussed on rail we realise that railways are not built very often and there is a certain mystique about them. It was indeed a most historic event that did inspire the imaginations and emotions of many, many people.
For me, someone who has come along lately to this and had the privilege of attending some of the official functions, I was just sincerely humbled to be a part of this. As someone who looks up at the giants around me who have made long term concerted efforts to make this come to pass it is those people that I literally take my hat off to: the people who believed that this was a reality when all other strong voices around at the time would be speaking to the contrary. There are some now who are strangely quiet and oddly there are also some now who are strangely euphoric about the rail when, at one time, their comments were less than that; muted, to say the least. Those who believed in darkest times, those who enthusiastically saw something that was not and made it happen, they are the real heroes here.
Their names are listed, and I start with Paul Everingham, a man I have met only on a couple of occasions. He looms large on the Territory landscape as a man who ignited that passion and vision and drove this idea forward. He and those who followed and carried the baton are the ones who should inspire all of us that no matter how small we are we can achieve great things. My colleague in this Chamber, the member for Brennan, Denis Burke, made a contribution. I recall a time in a lead-up to an election and there was a concerted chorus of derision saying that this would not occur and it was going to come off the rails, so to speak. It did come to pass. The momentum of the vision that has been propelled along through Paul Everingham, Barry Coulter, Shane Stone and others, and the public servants who worked behind the scenes – and I acknowledge and stand beside every name that was mentioned – over an extended period of time, every credit to you.
The railway is an enterprise that seems to attract, as I said, significant gatherings for what normally would be a minor event like the welding of the rail between Katherine and Tennant Creek. That is where I met Rob Kerin for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition from South Australia. We went on to meet on about three or four different occasions, and he said: ‘I think I’ve just about had enough of these special events and some day it will all come to a close and we will be able to look back on this and see it as one great project’. At all those great celebrations, the ceremonial welds and the arrivals and departures, the cheering and so on, one thing comes to mind as I realise that there was no official opening of the railway terminals. The fact that there was no great hoo-ha about the cutting of ribbons or the back slapping and three cheers with regard to Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin probably is a story in itself. That part of it left a good number of our regional communities, and here in the Top End, with less than an enthusiastic position with regards to the impression that would be created by the rail terminals, the sidings, as some people call them, or the ‘long drop’ in Tennant Creek. That aside, it has been a most auspicious occasion. For anyone who was involved in it, it was a time that did engender some emotion.
I acknowledge the sense of history in this. As we drive to Katherine there is a rail crossing a river - and I commend Duncan Beggs and the great work that he has done in communicating aspects of the rail to the Northern Territory community over an extended period of time. It draws attention to the rail crossing and a stone bridge that was built, to my knowledge, in 1925 by hand by migrant labourers. The quality of that workmanship is such a standard that the rail itself, the modern rail over a kilometre long, can pass over that bridge with only minor modifications. Once again, it is a credit to the ongoing workmanship and the quality that we have here in the Northern Territory and the contribution that has been made – I think in this case it was Greek labourers who built that bridge - high quality workmanship. It is tremendous to see something so old being up to a quality today that it is able to carry that rail.
Another aspect of the rail that I do not have the detail to go into, but I will be doing some work to make sure that this part of the rail is not forgotten, are the spin-offs, the technological contributions made by Territory businesses. There were innovative responses from Territory business in winning successful tenders for the rail, which are a great testament to the capacity of Territory businesses to respond to challenge. Duncan Beggs was able to give a tremendous outline of the different innovations that were created as a result of the rail, one in particular was an articulated trailer which has captured the imagination of all who saw it.
Of course we get engineers attracted to rail projects, and they see some of the innovative solutions, which, once again, are testament to the quality that we have here in the Northern Territory of local businesses able to deal with difficult situations and simply come up with a solution. To my understanding, that solution also has a significant value in being used in other places in the world. I do not have the details on those, there was a growing list of Territory innovations. I will be in contact with Duncan Beggs to see whether we can make sure that all of those local innovations, in whatever form, are documented. For anyone who has an interest in rail, and there are many of them, from Tim Fischer down, they are an important part of the history. They also tell the human story of the capacity to solve difficult problems, and Territorians being able to meet challenge.
Using the rail project as an analogy of what good economic stimulus does provide, it provides real employment. To have meaningful, sustained, genuine employment offered to a number of Territorians, and principally indigenous Territorians, was a very satisfying component of this rail. Out of the 1450 contractors employed, 130 of them were indigenous, and to have a noticeable difference made to the aspirations and the skills level of Territorians, and in this case indigenous Territorians, you need to have a stimulated economy. You need to have an economy that has the capacity to go forward. It is for those reasons that we continue to argue that the answers are found in the local economy. You must have a real economy. In some ways the railway is a way of illustrating just how powerful those forces are, because if you were up and down that rail, and you saw those people who were actively involved in a real project in real work, they carried themselves as real men with their heads up high and they had pride in their achievement. That was something that I certainly enjoyed, particularly at that time between Katherine and Tennant Creek. Those workers felt so proud of their contribution. Their pride is a quality pride, and it is a pride that carries them on into the future and gives them stories to tell their children about the project that they were involved in. It gives them skills that they can then use in other places. That is what really makes the difference.
That level of pride contrasted with - and we can be all be susceptible to it as politicians - but for politicians getting on the train and drawing unnecessary attention to themselves and trying to take as much glory as possible unto themselves so that they appear to be something of note, the very time that you touch that, you diminish your sense of standing and prestige and it cheapens the whole exercise. To that end I must comment on what was referred to by a number as the Mike and Clare show – this is Mike Rann and the Chief Minister – it did appear for the politicians who were involved in finding a former Labor Chief Minister coming out, and getting himself into a royal carriage …
Dr Lim: Prime Minister, not Chief Minister.
Mr MILLS: Prime Minister, sorry! Yes. It is those aspects of it that rankle slightly with ordinary Territorians, and particularly when I match the pride of indigenous Territorians and those contractors I met between Katherine and Tennant Creek - that is the real glory and the real strength of it.
However, to go up and pretend that you had extraordinary contributions to make to this, and cannot help but draw some of the glory to yourself - it is at that point that you begin to lose. There was some gloss that was lost in this exercise, particularly in the number of speeches that I heard. I could not help but detect the lack of generosity in acknowledging - particularly from our Chief Minister - in an uncomplicated and generous way, those who were properly involved in this railway. I for one noticed it and many others did. Many Territorians were silent in their observance of such utterances, but it did lodge within the Territory psyche that there was an ungenerous acknowledgement, or lack of acknowledgement, of the full contribution of those past. If you try to appropriate the glory for yourself, you at that point lose it.
I believe the actual last phase of the rail, of course, is the public face we now see. Most of the community see the terminals. We have already mentioned Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin.
However, we also mention the need for a community to celebrate. For a community to celebrate is a most important thing, because this has been talked about and discussed around barbecues and on fishing trips for years. There are families who were saying, ‘The train is coming’. There were children who had not seen a train. That exercise should have been a roaring success. It should have had the highest of priority so that the Territory community could have a complete celebration; that it was about their celebration, about their railway. It was a most disagreeable outcome to what should have been a very significant event for the Northern Territory community, particularly the Top End community. The number of Territorians who said that they felt like fools standing there on the side of the railway line waiting for the train to come - children who had never seen a train before, dads who had ‘geed’ their kids up to see the train - to find that it had not arrived.
There are ways that this could have been organised if the focus had have been in the right area. It would not have been too difficult for the community to be tuned into the local radio and to be told that that is where their information would be coming from. Instead, we had this mismanaged affair where there were public announcements that were locked in and there was disarticulation between the public media and the official media, which had many Territorians unsure about what was going on. It turned out to be a rather sad affair for many Territorians and an indictment on the Territory government.
I go back to the point that, in these issues such as significant events like this, we have already talked about how important it is that we celebrate certain parts of the rail because it is most historic and it does evoke emotion. We are seeing something that will never happen again. There will never be another Adelaide to Darwin railway. It is important that a community is duly acknowledged and brought to the fore because it is actually about them and their future.
I also draw attention to the future of Alice Springs. The fact that the rail has arrived and it now connects Alice Springs to Darwin means there are many issues with regards to the transition from rail freight to road freight. Now we have rail to rail going through Alice Springs. There are many issues that have arisen as a result of this transition that have caught many small business operators in Alice Springs on the hop. Yes, they knew the railway was coming. They had expressed their concerns and were seeking some guidance from the relevant departments to assist them in a transitionary stage. The view from Alice Springs is that their voices were not heard and it basically happened all by itself. Now they are left to find their own way, and many of them are in a terrible state with regards to what do now. Take responsibility for the part which you had and that being the commencement of that rail, the conclusion of that rail, and knowing how to manage that transition, particularly for the Alice Springs community because it has had significant effect to bear upon the local economy in Alice Springs.
I would like to know what precisely has been done in the transitionary period, in the last two years, for the Alice Springs community, particularly the trucking industry, to prepare them for the rail. Secondly, for the service stations and the small communities up and down the line which are sustained by the trucking industry, what has been done to assist those small business operators? I understand it is a time of change. I am not standing here saying that that should not happen, but I want to know what government has actually, what it has actually put in place to respond to those small issues which are huge issues for the people concerned and for the community of Alice Springs.
I acknowledge the fine strategies that have been outlined in here in regard to Asian relations and trade. Generally I support them. However, I as well as members opposite have been on the record saying that the focus must be maintained, and it should have been maintained right from the taking up of government. The momentum of this rail is something that propels us into the next phase. The rail was up and running; it had a steam of its own in many respects. It was actually a part of a broader concept and it seems now, only now, now that the rail has been completed, that we have members opposite waxing lyrical about trade routes into the region. It seems to me that that is too late.
Granted you will make the progress. Granted you will now make the connections and you will endeavour to shift shipping routes through the Port of Darwin, but really, there was a momentum that had been built up that needed to be capitalised on and literally you had dropped the ball. I can speak with some authority in that regard. Between Christmas and New Year, I took the Merpati flight on its return to West Timor to visit the port of West Timor. That is our closest Indonesian port. I was surprised to discover that the port had trebled in size in the last three years. At the port I saw areas that had been set aside and concreted ready for the receiving and storing of containers. Three years ago there were no shipping containers in the port of Kupang. It was just local trade which did not use containers. On the day that I was inspecting the port there were 250 containers there and their master plan sees a massive expansion of that port and it already has gone ahead of its blueprint.
I have been given the master plan for the port of Kupang. The port of Kupang connects to the port of Surabaya, the major trading port in Indonesia. The most disturbing part of this was that when I spoke to the Governor, and I spoke to the port authorities, they were surprised that the railway had actually been completed. They knew that the railway was a concept that had been talked about. They said they remember Shane Stone and Denis Burke. They remembered me from my previous visits running school exchanges and on a previous visit as a backbencher and I had studied in Kupang some years ago. They remember that, but they have never heard of our current minister, nor did they know that the railway was completed. Now, basic knowledge such as the existence of rail infrastructure just over the horizon, a one hour 20 minute flight from the port of Darwin, and a port of like capacity to the port of Darwin – surely, to have the basic knowledge in expanding a port in our region, that there is rail infrastructure just over the horizon would assist in your negotiations in Jakarta to allow the regional shipping routes to factor in…
If they had the knowledge they could shift their shipping routes through the port of Darwin. I guess it will occur, but my point is by not having that knowledge and being surprised that it has been completed, puts us probably a couple of years behind. Granted, you went to Jakarta some time after that, and of course now the system is aware of it.
What I am saying is that there were two years in which you had the opportunity to keep the vision alive and keep the momentum going because from a government level, if you are doing business in Asia, you need to operate at that governmental level so that the negotiations are developed by good relationships so that people are aware and they can put the decision making cogs in place so that these things can be effected. You can talk to trade and business officials in the region all you like, but unless you have government to government business, you are going to have very slow progress. It is good to see that you are now, with grand titles such as Asian Engagement Missions and so on, embarking on these grand tours to communicate that which should have been communicated a couple of years ago.
I support it, and I wish you all the best. I know it will ultimately be a success. It is a rail that is there for many years to come and will attract the attention of the world as they start to understand the potential that Darwin has. But of course, this was a vision that was always there, always in place.
Mr Dunham: Not for Clare.
Mr MILLS: Well, there was the white elephant as well from Mr Latham, but that is another story.
I would like to put on record the strange story that is circulating with regards to my berth on the train. I will say it quite clearly and, as I said at the beginning, I feel like someone who has come along lately to this, and there are many who have gone before me. The fact that I did not receive an invitation to travel on that rail is no issue or concern to me whatsoever. For it to be asserted in some strange way, however this occurs, I have no idea what it is about.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Anyway …
Mr Kiely: Is that it?
Mr MILLS: It is, indeed. Fifty thousand containers over three years is a big ask. I would ask the minister when he is making his contribution if he could explain to us how he has arrived at 50 000 containers. It is important to establish a goal, and I would accept that as a high benchmark and hope that it can be achieved. I am interested to know how you arrived at 50 000 because for those who are observers of such trade links, particularly at this early stage, it seems to be a rather ambitious target.
Going to the final point of how the Northern Territory can be adequately showcased through this railway – and this once again demonstrates that this is a powerful vision that captures people’s imagination - it surprises me that right around the country now, we have a new vision of the Northern Territory and greater interest in the rail. I have recently been in Western Australia and heard on three different occasions of people who have made plans, putting money aside, senior citizens – I have had my father’s uncle write to me and say with excitement that he is on the rail. There are people all around the country who want to be on this rail. I would agree that this is an unexpected benefit. It certainly is going to be a very significant benefit for the Northern Territory. To have people coming here, having a focus on the Northern Territory, going away with a picture of the Territory, they will be able to communicate that well upon their return.
However, first impressions are critical. I will certainly be gaining the views of my relatives and friends whom I know, with eager anticipation, are coming this way, and seeking their impressions when they arrive in Darwin. I would have to say that the impression that is gained by that terminal is one that makes many Territorians feel a little uncertain about the way that we are going to be viewed upon their arrival here in Darwin.
Finally, the Sandfly. I would hope that the Northern Territory government has been able to make some progress with regards to negotiation with the South Australian government, and the AustralAsian Rail Corporation, with the relocation of the Sandfly to the Northern Territory. Whilst I was in Adelaide I went to Keswick Station and had a look at the little Sandfly and it is a little beauty. In fact, it belongs here in the Northern Territory. I spoke to Premier Rann. He seemed to be acceptable of the view that it could be relocated. I also spoke to the executive from AustralAsia Rail. He also said we should have a talk about that, and did not seem to be against the idea at all. The issue now is to build a facility here so that it can be showcased properly in the Northern Territory, and I believe that is something that should occur.
Adelaide has plenty of historic items, particularly associated with railways. This is one that is directly linked to the Northern Territory and should be relocated to the Northern Territory, and if it takes the will of the current Northern Territory government to effect that, I call on you to do so. If not, it will be effected, it will be brought in place by an alternative government, because the capacity to do something like that is a problem which has been demonstrated. Problems can be overcome by Territorians with a will. I am sure that can be done. There are many Territorians who would appreciate that gesture. Maybe it is one way that you could demonstrate the capacity to actually achieve something at the tail end of this railway in terms of putting something in place, so that the people of the Northern Territory will be able to celebrate in true form.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the Chief Minister’s statement on the historic arrival of the train in Darwin. I join with the Chief Minister in congratulating all of those involved in the project from its inception, particularly over the last 10 years as a member of parliament here, seeing it develop. It was in that last decade that the push for the train really gained significant momentum.
It is true to say, it was Chief Minister Stone who took the reports off the shelf where they had been gathering dust, having been commissioned earlier in the nineties. He delegated Barry Coulter as the minister responsible for the rail to go do, and that Minister Coulter did in no uncertain terms. Notwithstanding the energy, the vigour and the great passion that Barry Coulter brought to this project, and he was certainly busy, not just in Australia, but internationally as well, scouring and encouraging investment into the project, notwithstanding all the very valuable groundwork that he did, it was still a tough project to get through.
Chief Minister Burke, of course, was the Chief Minister who saw the final approvals through and the passage of the final legislation prior to actual construction commencing. The former Leader of the Opposition, former Chief Minister Denis Burke, would well recall the circumstances under which that last legislation went through prior to the construction. It was a tense time. It was on a knife edge as to whether that project would go through or not. It was stressful. It was a very strained time and a time of high tension, but it got through, despite all those difficulties: the funding difficulties; the companies that were in and then suddenly were out; the efforts of South Australia to secure a greater investment, seeing them go to, I think it was a South Korean company, the lender of the last resort in the marketplace - and then having to back off that and secure other investments. It was not without a great many obstacles and hurdles - in the last 12 to 18 months, and particularly in the last three months - that had to be overcome. Therefore, credit to each of those.
At the public sector level, particularly the head of the Chief Minister’s Department, Paul Tyrrell. I remember on the same evening of that legislation, a very tired and drained Paul Tyrrell at a hurried briefing in that afternoon on the extent of the legislation that we were passing on urgency that same day and just what it meant. The previous Chief Minister would share the same view, that he also looked very tense and very drained at that stage, because there had been an exhausting series of meeting to make sure it stayed on track. Larry Bannister is one who certainly did a lot of work under Minister Coulter’s direction, pulling those reports off shelves, getting them together and making the strongest case possible for the rail. Alastair Shields should be mentioned. I was not close enough to know all of the players. However, certainly from my knowledge from opposition in those days, they are just a handful of the individuals who helped get the rail through. To me, in my own view, they are individuals whose contribution is significant enough to warrant particular mention.
In terms of the project overall, once it was under way it really did run smoothly. It was completed ahead of time, not an easy feat for a $1.3bn project through some of the toughest terrain in the world. You really have to hand it to those workers from day one right through to the project coming across the Barkly, and the temperatures we have all experienced through the Centre, and all the way to the tropical north. It was a magnificent safety record for that project for all of the man hours completed. The Leader of the Opposition made mention of the valuable contribution that Territory business made to the project as well. You have to hand it to the work force; the workers who stuck at it day by day, and Territory businesses that were able to come up with inventive ideas to make the job that much more efficient.
In historic terms, 2004 will be marked as a major step forward for the Territory – the year that the rail finally arrived. The arrival of the goods train in January, and later the first passenger train, marks the end of that long battle that I have briefly touched on. I hope the former Chief Minister does contribute to this debate. Out of all of us in this Chamber, he would be the one left now, obviously, who was closest to the action in terms of how difficult it was. It would be interesting to hear from him - probably we are talking of 18 months to two years ago – of those difficulties.
I was in Nhulunbuy when the first train left Adelaide and arrived in Darwin. I listened with great interest to Julia Christensen on ABC radio. She has the ability to make you feel you were there. I was in Nhulunbuy listening to the whole journey for three days all the way through, from Adelaide Railway Station where she interviewed people about the significance of it and what it meant to them at an individual level. She was then able to scour out along the suburbs along the route of the rail where people were gathered on each station the train passed through to witness the first journey and again interview people as to what it meant to them – why they were there and interested in seeing this train go through. They see trains go through those stations 20 times a day. However, the significance of the idea of rail uniting the top and the south - of course, the Stuart Highway does it, but in a way that the road does not quite capture the romance of rail, I suppose, and the completion of a long-held vision. That was fascinating to me and I congratulate Julie Christensen and ABC radio. They do it so well on these significant and memorable occasions, as I said, with the ability to place you there on the spot.
I was in Darwin at the Darwin Railway Station to meet the first passenger train. It was almost surreal. You could see it in the distance; it seemed to take an awful long time to finally get into the station. It is very difficult not to say it was an emotional moment. It was. To see a train of that length - and I had seen it on television - but the splendour of it and the fact that it was there, really there, you could reach out and touch it. I thought it was a pretty special moment.
That aside, most importantly it does mark a new phase in the economic development of the Territory. That is what this is all about and, of course, as minister responsible for employment, education and training, I will be watching very closely the impact in the longer term and the shorter term, the impact on job creation and development.
I pick up some the points being made by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the impact in Alice Springs. We recognised late last year when Cabinet approved a $3m injection into roads in Central Australia, notwithstanding the entire road network needs millions of dollars, it has been run down. But we thought here was the way of keeping many of the diesel fitters, the mechanics, and the people involved in the trucking industry. If you are going to get serious money in on roads, you need the earthmoving equipment, you need the trucks and you need maintenance and repairs along with that. We will be looking to certainly do more in the forthcoming budget. However, there was an immediate response in terms of getting money into Central Australia at the same time doing a very important role on our jobs.
Already the Desert Knowledge precinct is just at the point of commencement now. It started last week. In the next three years there will be 250 jobs, and $27.8m will be spent there supporting those 250 jobs. It is a bit rich for the Leader of the Opposition to ask what we are doing about Alice Springs when you have expenditure of that nature being rolled out over the next three years.
Mr Deputy Speaker, throughout the course of the building of the rail, it provided many hundreds of jobs. Many of those jobs went to specialist interstate workers who did a great job on the rail but having completed that job, as they do, they follow the major projects and many of them would have gone their way. It provided many jobs for locals, up and down the track both on-site and through the economic impact in regional centres. It was an important source of training opportunities, and inside those training opportunities a significant boost to indigenous training and employment. Now that the line is in place and the work complete, the challenge really for government and Territory industry and business is to make sure we capture those workers who gained those skills on that rail so that they are not back unemployed as they may have been before. Get them on future projects as they come through and to continue to enhance and reskill them for work into the future. The other challenge for everyone, particularly the operators, is to make that line work profitably for all.
Certainly, the tourism industry can expect a shot in the arm. We all thought ‘Oh!’ when the bookings went past $5m, $8m and when that first train arrived I think they went from like $15m to over $20m in the space of about three days. That was the effect, the pure and simple effect of people seeing the footage and saying, ‘I want to be a part of that. I want to be on that train’. Bookings were in the order of $4m or $5m in the space of three or four days, and well in excess of $20m now. That represents, and will continue to present opportunities to Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine to market themselves as tour destinations along the route. Substantial opportunities that simply were not there before and tour companies are already incorporating holiday packages and all sorts of product that the Territory has to offer. There is no doubt that that national publicity and international publicity that was generated around the first trips of the goods train and The Ghan you simply could not buy.
I take offence at some of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, who was not there and acknowledged that he was not on the train, but took a shot at Premier Rann and the Northern Territory Chief Minister for claiming all the glory and all the credit. Well, let me tell him, and his own colleague, the member for Brennan, can bear this out, they worked tirelessly – absolutely tirelessly – for the three days they were on that train selling the Northern Territory, and South Australia in the case of Premier Rann, to Japanese, to US, to European television, to get that footage up, to tell those people what this rail meant to Territorians and to Australians overall.
That publicity was generating the three and four and five millions dollars extra in ticket sales over the space of three or four days. That is what they were doing. They were not swanning around soaking up the glory. They were working hard every day to get that message out about the rail. The ABC footage of the arrival in Tennant Creek was terrific and the member for Barkly can indeed be proud of the people of Tennant Creek - not just Tennant Creek; they came from everywhere. Bob Collins said Katherine Railway Station was memorable. As only Collins can, he said, ‘The whole bloody town was there’ and that is certainly what it looked like on television; a truly joyous occasion. It is no less significant in Katherine from the footage I saw on television.
So the Territory was covered. There is just one other point I want to make, and that is to pay tribute to Mark Bowling and Stateline. The ability to almost place you on the spot; and some of the scenery from the train, the early mornings and the evenings, are an absolute delight. They are pictures in themselves. But Mark Bowling in that laconic way, I suppose, very cool and casual, but at the same time always 110% professional, just told the wonderful story of what this train journey meant to everyone on it. I could not think of a better person to have put that story together. It was a fabulous program and a great marketing tool in itself. The Territory was covered from Alice right through to Darwin by international and national media: television, print, press, the works. The opportunities into the future for small business to get on the back of this will be significant, particularly in tourism.
The Chief Minister said it is likely The Ghan would directly support the injection of 16 000 extra tourists into the Territory each year, and that is a $27m growth into the Northern Territory economy and sustain an extra 200 jobs on an annual basis. Not bad. Not bad figures at all. It is a stable, all year round service so tourists will be coming into the Territory at any time, not necessarily in the Dry Season. We can use it to build the Wet Season tourism industry, giving a much more solid base, all year round, to tourism.
With the government incentives that we have announced in the Jobs Plan, we would be looking to see an increase in young Territorians being employed in the wider tourism and hospitality training services as they get onto a much stronger footing. The growth in regional opportunities is also an exciting aspect. Not only is there likely to be a greater tourism impact in places along the track, but the impact of the development of Tennant Creek and Katherine as potential rail heads also bodes well for the growth of jobs in these two places.
I saw Paul Ruger from Tennant Creek on that same show, a very excited Paul Ruger, talking about what the rail meant to Tennant Creek and what was occurring already, albeit the first couple of trains that had come through. The diversity in those places of economic activity will be much welcomed and will bring new job and training opportunities.
We also expect regional industries such as mining to get a boost from the railway and the opportunity to carry product. Overall, the growth of new import and export trade through the port of Darwin and via the new AustralAsia Trade Route is going to be a fundamental growth factor for us and for the Northern Territory. Fifty thousand containers a year is the goal. When you get to that stage there will be many spin-offs right throughout the economy. Jobs and employment opportunities are being generated daily by the ongoing development of the Darwin Business Park. The placement of companies in close proximity to the railway, the freight forwarders and others, will create further job opportunities that would not have existed without the railway.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I said at the start, the real achievement of the rail is not that it was complete. That will be measured going into the future. It will be how well we, as a community, use the opportunities generated by the railway’s arrival that will be a measure of how successful it has been. Early signs are that the business community and everyone associated with the railway is getting it right, and it provides yet another significant boost to further exciting growth in the Northern Territory.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, having been a resident of Alice Springs and having the train coming to Alice Springs for well nigh 100 years, I did not expect seeing the train come through to be particularly exciting. However, let me say this: the town of Alice Springs responded very positively to the fact that the railway line was completed between Alice Springs and Darwin at long last, and that, indeed, we are going to see trains going through.
The day the freight train arrived in Alice Springs was quite eventful. I estimated that we had close to 2000 people at the railway station. It was chock-a-block, it was standing room only, and the terminal was taken over by masses of people. I thought the arrangements were pretty bad, actually, that people could not get into the railway station until right on one o’clock. People had turned up well before that because it was in the newspapers and announced on radio that it was going to arrive at 12:15, and people had lined up outside the railway station waiting to get in well before that.
Anyway, standing in Alice Springs at midday in the sun was not the best thing people would like to do. Once the gates were opened, there was a huge rush of people into the railway station, and the organisers and the people who were there to help look after the crowds were overwhelmed. All of the mementos that were supposed to be given to each person who attended were, unfortunately, grabbed en masse by many people. Those who had hoped to receive those historic mementos did miss out.
I am glad to see in the Chief Minister’s statement that she recognised Paul Everingham, who was one of the first visionaries to want to see the railway completed for the Northern Territory; unlike Gough Whitlam, who waxed lyrical and decided to rewrite history and tell everybody that, had it not been for him, the railway line would not have been developed in the first instance. What a load of codswallop that was, for him to sit in the royal carriage, so we are told, waxing lyrical about the history as he saw it. Was it not the Hawke pre-election promise that only a Labor government would deliver the railway for the Northern Territory, and once he got into government, what did he do? He commissioned the Hill Report to sink the railway line, and that is what he did.
That is the calibre of the Labor prime ministers that you have. Instead of fulfilling the dream that Territorians had, that the railway line would be completed between Alice and Darwin, as promised at Federation, it took a very dedicated, concerted effort from the CLP government, from Paul Everingham. I would like to say that Chief Ministers Ian Tuxworth and Steve Hatton had very little to do with the railway line, then after that, Chief Minister Marshall Perron, Chief Minister Shane Stone, and the current member for Brennan who was then Chief Minister. Without his very firm effort, the railway line construction would have fallen over. As the Chief Minister commented, you would recall the time when Hancock decided to pull out and the Premier of South Australia nearly sank the project with his unilateral action. Thank goodness for the foresight of our then Chief Minister, the member for Brennan, that things came together one more time.
A vision for the railway line for the Northern Territory is definitely something that has been voiced for many decades and, at long last, we see that now in reality. However, it was not just the railway line that was the instrument of the development. The new Darwin Port was the key to the whole thing. Without the port, the railway line would be a railway line to nowhere. It was the Darwin Port that was the catalyst that brought the whole thing to fruition. This is where this government has missed the plot completely. Instead of promoting the Darwin Port and the railway for the last 2 years, they sat on their hands and waited and waited, ‘Oh, you cannot do anything until it is done’. What a lot of rubbish! Had they gone out there and promoted not only the north of us but the southern manufacturers, we would at least have a certain quantity of containers moving through the Port of Darwin by now. Instead, we are going to now wait for a few more years before we can see anything truly coming through.
When the freight train came through I was in Alice Springs. I was one of many in the crowd standing up against some brick walls watching the events. If it was not a botch-up, I do not know what you would call it when people could not get to sit anywhere. At least we were close enough to the train and were able to see, to smell it; some of us were even privileged enough to touch it. It took forever for the train to move through because of its length. When it was finally parked at the railway station, you could hardly see the engine because it was so far up north of the railway station itself. A handful of us stayed behind after all the speeches were done and the train finally chugged out of the railway station.
We then all jumped into our cars and drove up the north Stuart Highway, up to the first overpass which is about 25 km north of town, to watch the freight train come through. It is such a difference listening to the train. I have been on The Ghan between Adelaide and Alice Springs - the clickety-clack of the railway wheels is quite pronounced. North of Alice Springs, because of the thermit welding of the railway line, there is no clickety-clack and it is quite a silent roll of the wheels on the railway line. It is a distinctive sound from south of Alice Springs to north of Alice Springs. It would be worth your while to experience that if you sat through from Adelaide to Darwin, to sense the difference. People were fortunate to be able to line up along the railway line south of Heavitree Gap, all the way up through to the first overpass, 25 km north of Alice Springs.
However, what I heard about Darwin was a disappointment for me. Territorians north of Alice Springs have been waiting for this train for a long time, and to not even be aware of when the train was going to come through - sitting in the sun in Darwin, waiting for the train to come through, when in fact the train had already gone passed - was a great disappointment for many people, and for children, in particular, who had never seen a train at all in their lives, to not get to see the arrival of the first train into Darwin. For the Chief Minister then to say: ‘Oh well, you can see it again next week’, was a pathetic throwaway line. I believe the Chief Minister realises now that she has really had the worst public relations disaster on her hands ever because of this train.
Under the CLP, do you know what we would have done? We would have put the arrival of the trains in Darwin into the hands of Major Events. Under Paul Cattermole things have been organised very well and we would not have had the debacle that the Chief Minister had to face with the arrival of both the freight train and The Ghan. The Chief Minister not only had to apologise to Territorians but she could not even do it herself. She pushed Paul Tyrrell in front of the media and said it is his fault. That is not the way a leader should lead.
Talking about Alice Springs in regards to the freight train, for months before the first freight train arrived into the Northern Territory, I had been asking about freight prices. I was particularly concerned about what FreightLink would charge for freight into Alice Springs and Darwin. For a long time I was not able to get any indicative prices from anybody, until finally one of the trucking firms was able to give me a briefing and a copy of the freight prices that FreightLink was going to charge. Those figures were fairly rubbery. It was something like June of last year when I first saw those figures. I have since received other, more up-to-date freight charges.
What I have noticed, is that for a standard sized container, it does not matter whether it is a 20 foot or 40 foot container, the price for the container to come from Adelaide to Darwin on the train is almost a third more expensive than for that same container with the same contents, to go from Alice Springs to Darwin. For the life of me I cannot understand why that should be so. Why should Alice Springs, which is right smack in the middle of Adelaide to Darwin, have to pay more for that container than Darwin has to pay for the same container between Alice Springs and Darwin? Something is wrong with the mathematics. I suggest to you that FreightLink is using Alice Springs to subsidise Darwin. That is not on. I was the chairman of the food price review between 1999 and 2000, and we found - and the Deputy Chief Minister was on that committee and he knows full well what I am talking about – that the Alice Springs cost of living was consistently between 2% to 5% lower than Darwin, and it should be so. Alice Springs is halfway to the manufacturing sources than Darwin and surely Alice Springs costs of living should be lower. What FreightLink has done is going to increase the cost of living.
When I put the question to the Chief Minister at last year’s estimates, she said, ‘I do not know anything about it, I have nothing to do with it’. She has everything to do with it. The Northern Territory contributed $175m to this railway line. It is taxpayers’ money, and for that, the government has to have some contribution to make towards what FreightLink would charge Alice Springs people and Territorians in general. Somewhere, somehow, things have gone off the rails and this government has walked away and said it is not our business. What a lot of rubbish.
Alice Springs has now lost its railhead, and sure, they have known about it for a long time and they have been putting processes in place to deal with it. But then the Deputy Chief Minister gets up and says, ‘We have put $3m of works into the roads to help the trucking industry’. The beef industry, the dirt roads up there in the bush need $70m to $80m worth of work right at this moment to get them up to acceptable grade. Three million dollars is a drop in the ocean. It does nothing for anybody. If this government was serious about making sure that our trucking industry in Alice Springs does not suffer, and I will come back to that in a minute, they are suffering in a sense that immediately that the train went through, there were some 36 jobs just went into thin air. The trucking industry has put off 36 people. The multiplier effect of that meant about 100 people were going to be severely affected by the loss of jobs. That is significant in a town of less than 30 000 people. No wonder we are losing a family and a bit every week from Alice Springs.
The government, knowing that the trucking industry was going to be affected, should have started promoting alternate products that the trucking could be used for. We know that the freight train does not have any refrigerated carriages, therefore the trucking industry will have a niche in bringing refrigerated product from Adelaide to Darwin. What they should be doing is ensuring that companies in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales that are sending refrigerated goods to Alice Springs will be using the people in the trucking industry who will be affected by this train. That way, it offsets the potential losses that the trucking industry will face. But what has the government done about it? Nothing. They just sat on their hands, ‘It is not our fault. It is up to FreightLink. It is privatised. It is a private business. It is nothing to do with us’. Well, $175m of Territory budget says that it has a lot to do with us and you must go ahead and do something about it.
The Deputy Chief Minister attacked the Leader of the Opposition about the Premier of South Australia’s and the Chief Minister’s efforts on the train. What the leader said is justified. I take my hat off to the Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, who acknowledged all the previous premiers and others who had contributed to the railway. In every speech I heard him make, he acknowledged John Olsen and others, but this Chief Minister, not once. Her best acknowledgement of the CLP was ‘previous governments’.
Mr Henderson: Wrong.
Dr LIM: Those were her words: previous governments. That is what she has done and that is churlish, nothing else. She had everything handed to her on a platter. All she needed to do was acknowledge that she had this handed on a platter, but could she do it? No, she could not, ‘This is all Clare Martin’s work that the railway line was delivered to the Northern Territory’. And guess what? After all this has been handed to her on a platter, she could not even get the last 100 m of the railway line fixed up properly, could not get the last 100 m of celebration, the last day of the railway line coming to Darwin, could not even get the celebrations organised properly. That is just amazing.
I come to the Chief Minister’s comment about trying for the next three years to get 50 000 containers, or its equivalent in tonnage, through the Port of Darwin. I do not know what she has been doing. Has she been talking to business about it? Perkins would love to be invited to offload all their containers through the Port of Darwin. Within a few months you will have 50 000 containers going through the Port of Darwin just like that. What are they doing about it? Nothing. Have they started talking to Perkins to try to attract them across? Surely that is one of our biggest shipping lines in the Northern Territory. This government has not done anything about it. It sits back and says, ‘Oh, well, private enterprise will have to do it’. This government does not understand enterprise, does not understand how it can go about doing business to improve the through-put from our port.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about how poor the effort has been of the current Minister for Asian Relations and Trade in promoting Darwin and the port facility. It is now 2 years too late, but get on with the work. Get on with the work so that at least for the next couple years, things will accelerate.
In the last couple of minutes I have, I would like to say that of the $9m that was allocated for improvement of railway stations up and down the track, Alice Springs has received a scant amount. The railway station has a small building with very little shade from the sun. It has to be fixed, and we have to have more …
Dr Toyne: We already had a station!
Mr Dunham: It’s a rip snorter. Are you happy with the station, are you? There you are! The Minister for Central Australia reckons they have a good station. What are they whingeing about?
Dr LIM: I will take on that interjection because he says we have a good station. There is no shade. The platform is well below the stair level of the train and people who are travelling …
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Dr LIM: You want tourists come to the Territory and you cannot look after them properly. It is serendipity that has The Ghan bringing tourists into the Northern Territory; it was really something that was not factored into the viability of the railway line. The viability of the railway line was factored for the freight and we knew that tourism would be icing on the cake. The fact that there have been fantastic numbers of tourists coming through on the train means that we are going to get a much better result than we had anticipated. That is well and good, but if you do not look after the tourists, they will not be coming back. If you read the newspapers in the last couple of weeks, people are already complaining. Where are the taxis? They cannot get taxis to come from the railway station into town. Get your act together, improve the business, support the railway line, the train, the port and industry, and then maybe we will see the benefits that the CLP had the foresight to see in bringing the railway line into Darwin.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am rising primarily to celebrate a very significant moment in the Northern Territory. Unlike the previous speaker, I am not at all tempted to turn it into a party political point scoring or criticism. The reality of the arrival of our railway was that members of both major political persuasions have made enormous contributions. This has been a 100 year relay race to get this railway into the Northern Territory, and you can identify actions and people from both sides of politics, and from the public service of the Northern Territory, and from the general public, who have played a very significant role in it. I can remember the member for Brennan coming into this House when the deal had been closed, and I can still remember the look on his face when he came in, he got the railway finalised, as a deal. That is history. It is not something that we can reconstruct in this House. I can remember when our Chief Minister went to lobby our side of politics in Canberra with just as much intensity to try to get this project through to its fruition.
The history is there for all to see, it goes back 100 years. I do not believe there is any point in blighting the enjoyment of this moment in the Territory’s history by trying to argue about who did and who did not do what to get the railway here. It is just important that it is here.
I missed both of the trains. At one stage I was flying to Melbourne, and I flew over the freight train, and the next time I was flying from Darwin to Alice Springs and I managed to fly over The Ghan as it left Alice Springs. However, for all of that, coming in on the evening flight and seeing The Ghan pulling up the first incline north of Alice Springs with the setting sun picking up the red of the engines, it was just a fantastic sight. It really moved your emotions to see that first train cutting up north of Alice Springs, the first passengers to go up towards Darwin. It was fantastic, and for everyone who had a hand in that, good on you. It has been a terrific effort to get it into the Northern Territory.
My job as regards the railway started, probably unofficially, about three years ago when we had forums in Alice Springs to let the community know what the potential impact was of the railway. There were so many fits and starts about getting the final deal in place that there were preparations for the final deal well before it was finally brought into place. This forum was held at Rydges, from memory. There was much talk then about the impact it was going to have on Alice Springs. I can remember having a briefing from Barry Coulter several years before the change of government, and he was projecting even then that there was going to be significant losses in the trucking industry in Alice Springs, and related industries such as the tyre, fuel and repair places, spare parts. It did not take a brain surgeon to work that out because, obviously, a lot of that north bound freight was going to stay on the train, and a lot of the freight coming from Adelaide to Alice Springs was going to go on the train. We have spent probably ever since trying to second guess what immediate or final impact there was going to be on the industry in Alice Springs.
It was interesting going around the trucking firms because some of them - for example, the ones that cart from the national distribution points for supermarkets to the supermarkets in Alice Springs, and I would imagine in Darwin as well - want to go ramp to ramp, so they are not interested in the train. With some of the fuel shipments, it was more about the capacity of fuel storage in the distributor’s facilities in Alice Springs or Darwin than it was about the cost of transporting the fuel. They were much more interested to get fuel exactly when they needed it, matching the facilities that they were trying to run. It was anyone’s guess really - and it still is - as to exactly what the final impact will be.
However, we know from the immediate surveys of businesses around Alice Springs, we have lost 35 odd jobs, I think, from about three of our firms. That was expected. The trucking industry, along with other industries such as construction, are very mobile and trucking firms will go where the work is available if they have to. We could not really set ourselves the task of fully replacing the trucking jobs in Alice Springs. It was simply not a realistic aim to set ourselves.
What we have set ourselves as a government was to put back into the economy of Alice Springs the overall buying and earning power of the jobs that might be relocated in the trucking industry to other parts of the Territory or other parts of Australia. It is interesting to see that already we are seeing - I think from the member for Barkly - four or five new trucking jobs have appeared in Tennant Creek already. There is going to be a restructuring of the industry. There will be relocation of some workers and some resources, and trucking is a very mobile industry.
What we did was to set up a package that could be put into place as quickly as possible around the time the impact of the operation of the railway was to be felt in the Alice Springs economy. The member for Nhulunbuy has indicated one of the major elements of that package, and that is the Desert Knowledge Precinct decision by our government. Again, it is a project which I acknowledged in Alice Springs at the launch last week had bipartisan support. I appreciate very much that the CLP has stuck with us on that and provided support for that project. It is crucial, critical, project for development for Alice Springs and the Alice Springs economy. What it is doing is building a significant new level of activity into the knowledge economy in Central Australia.
We are not going to manufacture extensively in Central Australia because the logistics are all against it. What we have, though, is some existing very strong research activities. We have strong teaching of tertiary education activities already in the town. We have lots of very useful, practical, applied knowledge that has built up over the years in terms of remote arid zone living - whether it be in primary industries such as pastoralism or horticulture, or whether it is the maintenance of remote communities or urban communities such as Alice Springs. We have learnt much over the years and there is a lot of accumulated knowledge that can be built on.
The Desert Knowledge Precinct will give a form to the further development, commercialisation, of that knowledge, the development of a smart community to grow the tertiary economy in Central Australia. We would expect the first and most obvious impact of it to be 245 to 250 jobs - depending on who you talk to - in the construction industry for the next three years. Therefore, in terms of the general economy of Alice Springs, that totally negates any negative impact of the railway on the overall level of employment in Central Australia. We will have more jobs on that project for the next three years than we would ever lose out of the trucking industry due to the railway. We believe that we have gained in all respects by taking that decision: $20.9m already committed in real money in the budget with an additional allocation to come for stage 2 in the project. The $20.9m already committed to capital works is to build the whole of stage 1, which is all the working areas of Desert Knowledge, that is the library, it is the contemporary museum of Arid Zone Living and Cultural Living, the teaching spaces for Batchelor College, CAT, administrative areas and the research areas that will be based on that precinct.
That precinct is fully integrated with the CSIRO and it is fully integrated with Arid Zone Research Institute of Primary Industry. We have a very powerful precinct now where there is going to be a lot of teaching, research, applied development, and contemporary cultural work. It will be great for tourists because it is right on the airport road and opposite Yirrara College. So we have a fantastic synergy of different things put together there. So, there are 250-odd jobs going back into the Alice Springs economy.
Additional to that we have put out $3m of additional road works. We had to do that anyway because the road network in Central Australia is being degraded. In fact, throughout the Territory, we have significant issues with the loss of utility of our road network. It is quite clear that it is appropriate for government at the moment to be increasing the effort on the upkeep and upgrade of our road network, particularly beef roads and the roads to the communities. That $3m translates into trucking jobs, impacts on tyre suppliers, spare part suppliers, fuel suppliers, the very people who have been up till now supplying the trucking industry. We will have to maintain an enhanced level of activity on our roads well into the future. We believe that the immediate impact that that decision will have on those parts of the existing industry will be maintainable into the future. We will probably have to enhance activities on the roads well beyond the announced levels at the moment and that is being assessed through our processes at the moment.
A third area which is worth doing for its own sake, but it is certainly worth looking at, is specific public service units or jobs that are appropriately placed in Central Australia. That is not about going around and ambushing public servants in Darwin and elsewhere and saying, ‘We have a job for you but it is down in Alice Springs’. It is about looking at the types of capacity that we want within the public service in Central Australia that may not be fully represented there at the moment. Late last year, as an example of this, we opened a new Justice office, which has additional jobs in crime prevention and in the community justice projects that we are gradually rolling out around the Northern Territory, and some additional community corrections positions. It is the first time that the Justice Department has a recognisable public service unit in Alice Springs. It is six jobs and six families that are going to be working or able to live in Alice Springs on the basis of those public service jobs.
There are other jobs that are being assessed by the Public Service Commissioner, not many but just where it is appropriate to focus the work of a particular part of one our agencies in Alice Springs rather than up here. That just helps to redress any loss of employment within the Central Australian economy as a whole.
When you put all those things together, we have a pretty strong and appropriate response to the impact of the railway in Central Australia. We are confident that we have certainly prevented any overall negative impact and probably, if anything, we have come out with a bit of a nett profit on the number of jobs that we will have within the region. As minister for Central Australia I have to say that I am well pleased with that outcome. It is even better if you can move forward. I would have been happy to have held our ground but if we have extra jobs and extra activity into the economy down there, all the better. We need to keep growing, particularly, the tertiary economy in Central Australia.
I look forward to seeing positive sides to the railway. We are going to see more tourists stopping over, whether it is for the time the train is in transit in Alice Springs or whether people take a week between trains to see a bit of Central Australia, the Rock or to get around the Mereenie Loop. Our tourism industry is certainly hoping that we will get a spin-off from the increased passenger numbers that are coming up on The Ghan at the moment. We hope that the levels of ticket sales that the Chief Minister was talking about do not drop off, that they are maintained. There is very high interest being shown in what is one of the greatest train journeys in the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker, when you put all that together, it is fantastic. The train is here. We have sorted out some of the impacts that we did not want to see in Central Australia. Now we can look forward to all the benefits.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I take great pleasure in making comment in respect of this ministerial statement. At the outset, it is pleasing that this statement has come before us today for one reason: laid down for the historical record are the names of so many people who have been involved in this railway project, many of whom I do not know personally. Of course, I do know a number of them. It is particularly pleasing to know that when people search the historical record, those names are there for posterity. I am sure that every individual whose name is recorded will take great pleasure from it. I am very pleased with the Chief Minister’s statement.
Of course, there is only so much you can do in a ministerial statement. There are some names that are not there. I can point to one straight off, and that is John Howard. Maybe you should include Jeanette Howard in that as well, and Tim Fisher and others. But I do not say that as a criticism; with the best will in the world, there are names that are not recorded in the statement. Overall, it is a very important statement.
One of the things I might say – and I do not say this from a position of personal gain; I do not care if my name is not there – is that I searched the Parliamentary Library to determine whether there is a clear record on the history of the railway project. It is very hard to find; there are all sorts of statements, adjournment speeches, progress reports, comments in Appropriation Bills on the railway, but no concise history of the project from go to whoa. I hope that at some time in the future it might be a project that the government could commission; they may already have it in train. It would be a wonderful project for the posterity of Territorians as an historical record, either by a researcher from the Parliamentary Library or some other historical researcher.
The impact of the railway, even though I have been involved with it for some time, never really hit me personally until I had the opportunity to travel on The Ghan and we left Keswick Railway Station in Adelaide. Not only was it a wonderful reception with many thousands of people at the reception, but I was absolutely struck by the thousands and thousands of South Australians who lined that route all the way to the outskirts of Adelaide and beyond. There was a large reception in Port Augusta, and, of course, the wonderful reception that we received in the centres in the Northern Territory and from individuals all along the route.
I can tell you with some honesty that I was quite emotional when we came to the outskirts of Darwin, not least because my son was standing on top of a car waving a flag with a couple of his school mates near Palmerston, but to see Territorians welcoming that train and realising that it had finally all happened was particularly pleasing and will stay with me for the rest of my life.
The thing that struck me then was that it was South Australians and Territorians not just welcoming a train, it was, to my mind, the epitome of the Australian spirit. It was a reflection that we Australians together can overcome and achieve against the odds. I believe that is what people were applauding. They did not really care which individuals may have played a part in it. I believe each and every one of them felt, in their own way, that, as Australians, something wonderful and lasting for Australia had been achieved, that a new transcontinental route right through the centre of Australia had become a reality. It was certainly a great pleasure to be involved in the final aspects of the completion of the railway and the first travel on The Ghan.
I would like to encapsulate this whole railway project in a couple of areas. One is the importance of leadership and, secondly, the fact that we Territorians can achieve anything against the odds, providing we put sufficient effort into achieving it. I believe that is what the railway, in terms of its achievement, really means for Territorians. If one wishes to speak about leadership, you can filter it all down really to one person, and that is Barry Coulter. The simple fact is that Barry Coulter has been involved in this project for many, many years. I certainly never came to the project, and then really as an observer, in Cabinet, until 1995. Barry Coulter, primarily supported by Neil Conn and Paul Tyrrell, had been with the railway project for many years prior to that point. Coulter epitomises the sort of leadership that is needed for this sort of project, and he also epitomises it in a number of very interesting ways.
Anyone who knows Barry Coulter knows that he is probably a larrikin politician, a mischievous politician in getting his own way, a likeable politician. One of the greatest things about Coulter was that he could have an incredibly tough argument with someone in this Chamber and two minutes later they were on the best of terms. He had a wonderful way of broaching both sides of politics. For a person who had really come up through the school of hard knocks, one of the things that always impressed me about Coulter was that he had an absolutely photographic memory. Coulter could refer to anything and have the details in absolute accuracy on any of those issues, straight off the top of his head. I have never seen a person in Cabinet so persuasive. Certainly in the time I was in Cabinet, right through from 1995 onwards, I do not reckon that there would have been four Cabinet sessions that occurred without Coulter giving an update briefing on the railway.
Anyone who is in Cabinet now would know that there are times when Cabinet is pretty pressed, there is a lot of business to do. Coulter always had the overhead presentation, always gave the update briefings on the railway and, at times, from 1995 onwards, many were wondering just how this project would actually progress. Not only that, he was responsible primarily for the development of East Arm Port, and Coulter, more than anyone, could see that the railway was only one aspect of this whole concept of Darwin becoming a transcontinental hub for rail and shipping services up and down the centre of Australia, and also to the regions to our north, and from those regions down to our southern ports.
I can say with complete honesty the reason I got into politics was because when I was CO 2Cav, the first politician I met of any note was Barry Coulter. The reason I met him was that I was CO 2Cav when our vehicles took a short cut across a cattle station that we did not think would bother anyone. It happened to be owned at the time by the Deputy Chief Minister, which I found out very quickly, and we had done a fair amount of damage to his roads. So we fixed those, but in having our first conversation, I was absolutely struck with this unique Territory character.
It was the efforts of Coulter in order to put this project together that really gave it, over time, the impetus that it needed to carry others with it. Neil Conn is on the record as saying that he and Coulter, at one stage, were sitting together at some hotel after one of many briefings that they had with either consortia or individual organisations they were trying to get involved in the railway. He and Conn said that they thought at that stage that maybe they were the only two people in the world who believed that this railway could, and should, happen. I believe that is true.
The other important thing about Coulter in terms of leadership is not only those characteristics of infectious enthusiasm that can carry something through against the odds, but he was also very smart. Coulter knew his own weaknesses and always surrounded himself with the very best of people. In everything he did, Coulter had the best people that money could buy. He picked early with Neil Conn and one could surmise whether or not Coulter would have got all that far without the Under Treasurer being a devotee and a converted enthusiast for the railway. The two of them together, along with Paul Tyrrell, gathered others around them and gradually progressed the whole project.
The Chief Minister said in her statement that there were a number of milestones along the road. She said this included work by Hill of the Railway Executive Group. For the record, Hill did not help the railway at all; Hill scuttled the railway. When he was commissioned, I think by the Hawke government - and I do not say this as a criticism of Labor, it is important for the historical record - and if ever there was a time that I saw Coulter most despondent was after the Hill Report was released, because the Hill Report essentially scuttled the railway.
When one looks at the Wran Report that followed after that – the report on the Committee of Darwin -you have to ask yourself: who got this commission? It might have been commissioned by a Labor government, but I can tell you that it was probably done more than anything by the urgings of Coulter who could work with guys like Laurie Brereton, and was on very good terms with Paul Keating and Bob Hawke. As I said, the ability of this particular Territory politician to walk at any level and be able to deal with politicians of other persuasions and get what he wanted, really was the reason that Wran Report was commissioned. The Wran Report was essential. It talked about the future of Darwin and Commonwealth relations in progressing Darwin. However, Coulter’s aim primarily was to get a new methodology done on the railway.
The Chief Minister has said that it was the Wran Report in 1995 which restored the confidence of Territorians when it found that the railway was not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’. It is worth reminding ourselves just what the Wran Report actually said. The Wran Report was not all that good. I will quote from the report:
What Wran was saying was not ‘if’ but ‘when’, I guess. However, in reality they were saying that the economic circumstances in the Northern Territory were not here.
Another interesting aspect of the Wran Report is this, particularly now when one talks about the importance of The Ghan. Also, it is a reminder of how these particular reports have to be seen for their own flaws and not necessarily as scientific, as many of the authors would hope. Wran himself said with regards to the evaluation of the viability of the railway that it should be a freight only train in practice.
It is instructive to see that sort of comment at a time when we are saying, firstly, The Ghan is not being subsidised and, when it comes to whether or not it is going to profitable, it is already recording enormous profits at the outset.
The other point that I wanted to make with regards to the historical record, the Chief Minister talked about the various milestones, talked about the contribution from each of the governments. It was an enormous effort right at the outset to get $100m from Prime Minister John Howard, as he himself said at the function here after the freight train arrived. In many respects, one of the greatest persuaders was his wife, Jeanette, and we knew that. We always made sure that Jeanette was well and truly briefed on what was going on with the railway. The Chief Minister at the time, Shane Stone, persuaded John Howard to contribute $100m of Commonwealth money. This was before a consortium had been selected. That was a very important start point in order to get the Commonwealth to make their own contribution.
At the time, it was $100m from the Northern Territory and also $100m from South Australia. In that regard, due to the circumstances of South Australia in terms of their financial situation, it was a very difficult decision for the South Australian government to make. The South Australian government committed also $100m. So, there was a $300m commitment from the three governments. We set about then going through the process of getting the consortium selected and the Chief Minister has laid that down in her statement. Eventually, the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium, led by Kellogg Brown & Root, was the successful consortium selected.
It was a hard road from then on because it was one thing to have $300m, it was one thing to have the consortium selected, but it was another issue then to get down to the hard business of really deciding what would be the contribution from the private sector and what would be the contribution from the governments. We knew that we needed a lot more than $300m quantum from the three governments. I can remember the first meeting I went to with the Prime Minister where we were basically saying that we had this successful consortium, we needed additional money from the Commonwealth, what a great project it was for everyone, and could we get more money, Prime Minister, please? I remember before we went into that meeting that I said to Rick Allert, ‘You do the talking’, because I knew that Rick Allert was pretty friendly with John Howard. In most of the meetings it was Rick Allert who led the discussions that we had with the Prime Minister.
Rick Allert is mentioned in the Chief Minister’s statement and he is one I would just mention again. The Northern Territory has used Rick Allert on a number of occasions over the years. He is probably one of the smartest operators around and also indicative of the sort of people that Coulter surrounded himself with. If you look at projects that Coulter has been involved with in the Northern Territory, you can generally find Rick Allert’s name in there as well. Rick Allert led the Australian Railway Corporation as its chairman, representing as well the South Australian government, and supported by Paul Tyrrell, the Chief Executive Officer of the AustralAsian Railway Corporation and also the CEO of the Chief Minister’s department.
Paul Tyrrell is a stand out public servant. He is probably out in the background embarrassed at anything that we are saying because he always keeps a low profile. Indicative of his capacity is the fact that this government has been particularly well served by Paul Tyrrell. I am sure everyone on the opposite side of the House would attest to the incredible capacity he has across a wide range of areas, and to achieve what is in the Territory’s interest. Coulter identified him early. He has always been a protg - well, I do not know who was whose protg, they would probably argue the point, it is a moot point - but they certainly worked together and continue to work together. Paul Tyrrell, who has been involved in this project from day one, deserves the highest of accolades.
When you are dealing with a consortium that has the robustness of the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium, when you are dealing with organisations such as Kellogg Brown & Root, owned by Halliburton, organisations such as Barclay Mowlem and John Holland, and those sorts of organisations, these people play for keeps. They play for keeps with millions of dollars. Someone there representing the Territory’s interests has to be as smart or smarter than them to achieve what we wanted for the Northern Territory. Paul Tyrrell was the man to do it.
The Chief Minister made comment that after we achieved financial close, there was a setback in January 2001 when the Hancock Group, a major investor, pulled out of the project. However, in March 2001, the three governments agreed on a support package on commercial terms of an additional $79.2m. May I say that it was a bigger story than that; it was almost the death knell of the project when Hancocks pulled out. I remember being at Taronga Park Zoo - I think it was New Year’s Day in 2001 – when I received a phone call, as I recall, from the United States, I think it came from Kellogg Brown & Root, to say that Hancocks had pulled out. We were around $80m short on the project at a time when all the investments were so finely balanced, when the general opinion of all commentators in Australia was that the project should not go ahead. It was a critical point in the project. If there is anything that can be said arising from that, it is a fact that the last thing we needed then was the politics that were played because …
Dr LIM: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the member for Brennan be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE: because it is important that we do not make those mistakes again. This government has embarked on some major projects, one of which is the wharf precinct. We are talking about $600m of taxpayers’ money. If there is fault in terms of the fact that I never kept the opposition suitably briefed on the details of those problems, I accept that entirely, but notwithstanding that, the project was nearly destroyed because Hancocks pulled out.
I can tell you now that at the time, there were allegations that there were back-room deals done with regards to the Darwin-Katherine transmission line. I can tell you that I was put under enormous pressure about that transmission line. I resisted that pressure and made sure that the process was followed absolutely properly, and that in itself raised the ire of a few people, not least being Paul Everingham who was in equity partnership with Hancocks at the time. I was under enormous pressure to do a deal with Hancocks, and I would not. Hancocks pulled out of the project and the results that followed soon after that were a call for a public inquiry from Warren Snowdon – in fact the words used were ‘royal commission’. I can read from the NT News at the time:
Syd Stirling also came out wanting to know what was going on. That put a tremendous pressure on investors who were still in the project trying to convince their boards – and many of them had gone above board approval at that stage by staying in the project – that they needed to put more investment into the railway. It was an enormously difficult period, trying to secure that extra $80m.
One of the nicest things that has been said to me about the railway project was said by Franco Moretti who was the chief bid negotiator for the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium. He said to the Prime Minister at the dinner after the freight train arrived that ‘when things were darkest for the consortium, Denis Burke kept the light shining’. I am proud that he said that because we did. The simple fact was that I gave Paul Tyrrell instructions, privately, that if all else failed, the Northern Territory would meet the $80m shortfall. We did not have to do that, but the CLP government was prepared to do it and would have done it if we had to. But privately armed with that information, Paul Tyrell could continue to negotiate, and negotiate hard and well, and walk away from the table when things were not going his own way because he knew that he was supported by the Northern Territory government by that $80m shortfall if things fell over. That is an untold part of the story but it is important to put it on the public record.
Others are mentioned, Larry Bannister and Alastair Shields, two public servants who worked closely with Paul Tyrrell. He knows how much they did. I saw them operating long hours continuously at the merchant banks in Sydney. They did not seem to sleep in the closing weeks and months of that project, surrounded by reams of contractual documentation, trying to settle the project at a time when the boards of each of the consortia were getting more and more frustrated, and more and more concerned about whether or not they should stay in this project. So, those people alone, Rick Allert, Paul Tyrrell, Larry Bannister, and Alastair Shields, from my personal experience, deserve the highest accolades from Territorians for what they did in that project.
The Chief Minister mentioned Malcolm Kinniard, Chairman of the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium, and Andrew Fletcher, CEO of Kellogg Brown & Root, owned by Halliburton. I first met Malcolm Kinniard when he came to Darwin, accompanied by the then Chairman of Halliburton, Dick Cheney, now the Vice-President of the United States. There is a whole story around that first meeting but, typical of Barry Coulter, within a couple of hours, Cheney had warmed to him, was convinced by seeing Coulter and knowing Malcolm Kinniard, that this was a project he should get involved in. I have said on many occasions that when people are dealing out accolades for who was involved in a project, do not ever forget Dick Cheney - his successor, David Lesar, was here and spoke at the freight train arrival - but Dick Cheney, I believe, more than anyone was the one who put the stamp on Halliburton to say this is the project we will back. As I said, when things got dark and investors got shaky, particularly some of the smaller institutional investors, it was the might and confidence of Halliburton, and Kellogg Brown & Root, that kept that whole project together.
The CEOs of the different constructors, John Holland, Barclay Mowlem, Macmahon, the Australian Railway Group and PGA Logistics, all deserve a special mention, and Tim Fisher, not mentioned in the ministerial statement, a great supporter and continued supporter of the railway, and someone I hope who is not disappearing from the railway scene. I have heard that his involvement is getting less and less. That would be a sad thing for his task because I believe really Tim Fisher’s task has just begun. I would hope that between the South Australian and Northern Territory governments they maintain Tim Fisher’s involvement because it is desperately needed.
Al Volpe from ADrail; the Chief Minister spoke about in the success of the construction project was something that is world class, to complete a project of that difficulty in the time they did it and the way they did was a wonderful achievement, and supported particularly by Duncan Beggs and on indigenous issues by Bob Collins. They deserve our accolades and also yes, of course, Bob Cush, also mentioned in the ministerial statement.
I must mention the Northern and Central Land Councils, because they deserve special mention, they could have been difficult; they were not. It points to us all the fact that on projects where indigenous people see the benefit, not only to them but primarily to all Territorians, all Australians, including indigenous people, they fully supported the project, they bargained hard, they bargained successfully and they bargained well on behalf of their own people, and full marks for all their efforts.
There are tremendous challenges ahead. I will not dwell on them now. They are laid out in the Chief Minister’s statement. Certainly, from my perspective, I agree with the member for Stuart and that is, it is time to look forward. We have thanked those who have been involved. I hope that, as I said, that in a more fulsome way something is commissioned to get a true history of the whole project. I believe it is important for posterity. Let us look ahead, let us see the challenges ahead and we can make this project a great one for all Territorians and all Australians.
May I just say there was a question today in the Chamber and I will take this opportunity to quickly mention it. When it comes to Defence support, this railway project is an example of what is needed to gain for the Northern Territory the issues that are happening within Defence at the moment. I would like to work cooperatively with the Northern Territory government on this. If we all understand what is involved with the joint training arrangements that the Americans are looking for, the opportunities for Bradshaw Station, for regional development in the Northern Territory, for upskilling our work force and getting great, new technologies in the Northern Territory, to become the regional centre for armoured operations, this is possible. However, we have strong competitors – Queensland, in particular - and we have strong concerns from arms of the United States Defence Force - namely the Marines -about the viability of Bradshaw. We can do it. We can achieve it if we recognise where the challenges are. If we all work together and the Northern Territory government puts the same sort of energy, leadership and expert team around this project as happened with the railway, then we will be successful.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, my comments will probably pale into insignificance after listening to the member for Brennan. What he has just stated just shows you the pain, I suppose, over many years that many people had to endure to come up with what is really a great project. Therefore, I am not going to speak here about all those people who have done those great things; that has been mentioned plenty of times. What the member for Brennan has said highlights the fact that a lot of effort, money, time, sweat, and tears went into something now which is just a great project and a great thing for the Northern Territory.
I went out to the arrivals of both the freight and the passenger trains. One of the things that I found of great joy is that now I can say I am going to see people off at the Darwin railway station. I will not call it a terminal, I will call it a station for the time being. Hopefully. it may be bigger one day. I have a photo of one of my constituents. I know it is not that big, but there is Yvonne O’Neill from Howard Springs who caught the train last Wednesday. I made sure that I went. I told people I was going to Darwin railway station to say goodbye to one of my constituents who paid for that ticket quite some time ago. The Elliott family from Elizabeth Valley are also going on that package tour. I think it was $895. You could go to Adelaide, stay two nights in Adelaide and fly back. Admittedly, they have to sit up, but they said they wanted to stay awake for the whole trip. I am not sure what they saw at 12 o’clock at night, but they said they did not want to miss one kilometre of the trip. Having a train there that you can go to, to meet people, and now see people off, is just great. It is something that I would not have believed we would ever have.
I was interested in the member for Brennan’s comments and what he read from the Wran Report that it would not be a passenger train. I remember Barry Coulter’s famous comment - maybe they were based on that Wran Report - that nothing with two legs would travel. I must admit I was sad when I heard that. I had always felt that, having travelled on the Indian Pacific, a passenger train to Darwin from southern states would be something that would have to make money. It would sell as something like the Trans-Siberian Railway or one of those great railway journeys of the world. I just think it is great.
I know we should not be criticising too much, but I was one of those who got their ticket to go to the railway station to see the passenger train arrive. I would love to know who said you could park all those white cars in front of all the people who wanted to watch the train, because someone just did not realise that people could not see the train properly because all the white cars for the guests were parked there. In actual fact, one of the police cars, the little Hilux, parked up there in front of the people. There was such a shout from the people trying to watch the train, they obviously realised they had parked in the wrong place and moved out. I know it is only a little thing but it was just one of those things that people forgot: people wanted to see the train, they did not want to see cars.
I would like to speak about some of the little things that have occurred since we finished the railway. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that there was an opportunity for us to try to use the railway for other things. I spent some time sitting next to the chairman of FreightLink, and I think also the chairman of FCL, on the night we had the railway dinner. The chairman of FreightLink mentioned about having a passenger train. I had raised that issue in the Alice Springs sitting about the possibility of a passenger train. Then I think the chairman of the Great Southern Rail said, ‘We are not a passenger train; we are a tourist train’. The government should seriously look at the possibility of having small rail, a motor rail, whatever you want to call it, on the line, whether it runs from Darwin to Katherine first, or whether it runs right down the track.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I think there is plenty of scope for train to move people, Territorians, back and forth. The Ghan is only going to run one day a week. If you ran a train from Darwin to Katherine I believe you would pick up backpackers going there - throw their bikes on the back; people from Darwin wanting a weekend away from Darwin; Katherine people wanting to come up and do some shopping in the shopping centres; sporting teams - a great way to bring teams both ways; special events like the Adelaide River races, the Pine Creek races - you could bring people to and from those events. It is a great opportunity for the government to look at that, you might say it is a micro-economy. For sure, we looked at the big picture, the big freight train, the big passenger train. Let’s see what we can do perhaps to help people within the Territory travel between towns.
We know that Alice Springs has the Masters Game and Finke Desert Race. Tennant Creek has its go-kart grand prix. So there are all those opportunities that we should look at. We should not just be relying on The Ghan because The Ghan will always be there as a fairly expensive, fairly tourist-oriented type of transport. We need to look at something that will just take passengers back and forth.
There are other little things that I did not realise that the train will have as a spin-off. I was talking to a firie today and he says that they are now doing training to work on the passenger train in case of an accident. There is a whole container load of special equipment being sent up that can be helicoptered out of Darwin in case of an accident on the train. They have to learn new skills because now we have a different form of transport that we did not have before.
I would also like to thank Duncan Beggs. I know Duncan Beggs has been mentioned a few times and I do not want to single many people out. I say that because people will know my concern about some of our World War II heritage and I was concerned that the railway would go through the infamous Livingston airstrip – which is now famous for other things. He made sure the railway corridor was as narrow at that point where it passed the Livingstone airstrip. It is normally at least 60 m wide; they brought it down to 40 m to make sure it did not destroy the actual strip. I thank Duncan for making sure that there was some effort made to retain our World War II heritage.
On heritage as well, there was talk about the Darwin Business Park. If anyone has been out there now you would see that a lot of the ground is flattened; the hill where East Arm Leprosarium was is just about gone, and that was a concern. I raised in the last sitting of parliament the issue of at least some heritage being retained to recognise the East Arm Leprosarium. I am told the government is working on some areas to be set aside to remind the people that the leprosarium did exist, so when the Darwin Business Park is full of big sheds and lots of equipments there is some way to remind us there was something else there many years ago.
There has also been talk about 50 000 containers. My concern is: where do those containers go? I may have quoted in parliament previously when I was discussing the future industrial expansion of Darwin that I thought they were looking at a million containers eventually. The siting of those containers is important. Presently, they expect to site those in the middle of the harbour. I believe we can certainly find a better place to site anything between 50 000 to a million containers. They are pretty drab things to look at, and the middle of the harbour is not the place to put them.
Just another little issue: I heard a gentleman talking about the train on the radio. He was on the sit-up part of the train and on the way back he could not get scrambled eggs. He could get toast, but he could not get scrambled eggs because he found out that they had nearly run out of eggs. He was intimating that, basically, the train had come to Darwin with a load of eggs and was not going to pick any up in Darwin. Whether they thought there were no eggs in Darwin, I am not sure. Whether the closure of Landell and some parts of Fresha had got back to Great Southern Rail, I do not know, but I certainly hope they do not run out of eggs again. That is not going to give either Darwin or Great Southern Rail a very good reputation if that is the case. It was just an aside that he mentioned on the way back to Adelaide.
My comments are basically that we have opportunities. They might be small opportunities compared to some of the big picture projects that the government is talking about. We should be trying to use the rail to its maximum. I certainly think a small train, a motor rail, would be a good investment. If the government does not think it is a bright idea, at least go out and do a bit of a feasibility study on it and come back to this parliament and say, ‘This is what it will cost to run and these are the possible opportunities that such a motor rail could facilitate’.
We must not forget what I call micro-tourism, small tourism that a lot of us as Territorians like. We like to get around within the Territory and a small train like that would be of great benefit.
I also congratulate all those people who built the railway. I will always remember lots of kids at the railways station, especially when The Ghan came in, waving those flags. Again, I am not trying to criticise too much, but it is a pity there were not more souvenirs. It was a great opportunity. When we were in Alice Springs to see the first sod turned, there were bottles of wine to remind us of the day. There were pegs you could buy. It was perhaps an opportunity that we missed, to work on the souvenirs, not just because we wanted to sell souvenirs, but because many people wanted to take a piece of the day home. I certainly have The Ghan flag and the Australian flag crossed up, sitting on top of my door as you come in because they were a great idea. Kids were waving those when the train came in. They certainly will not forget it and I will not forget it.
On the day, I took a picture of our local publican, Jim Elsdon. He used to own the Elliott Hotel and he has now bought the Howard Springs Tavern. He had his young son, Jack, on his arm. I took their photo in front of the train. He now has that up on top of the bar. It is his pride and joy. His little son will now remember the day that his dad took him to the first train coming to town. It is one of those days that I and a lot of people will remember. I congratulate everyone who was involved in getting it here.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that debate be adjourned.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I seek to speak, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Dr Toyne: No, I have moved. I am sorry.
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the debate be adjourned.
Mr DUNHAM: I would like to speak to the motion, then.
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the debate be adjourned.
Mr DUNHAM: I would like to speak to the motion.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the debate be adjourned.
Mr DUNHAM: What we have here, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker is …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not recognised you, member for Drysdale. The question before the Chair is that debate be adjourned.
Mr DUNHAM: And I am speaking to that, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Dr Toyne: You have not been acknowledged to speak!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no debate allowed on the motion, member for Drysdale. The question is that the debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
Dr TOYNE (Health): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight, together with my colleague, the Minister for Family and Community Services, I will talk about change; the kind of change that the people of the Territory elected the Labor government for; the type of change that will make a real difference to families and communities across the Territory.
Yesterday, we released our five year framework for change, Building Healthier Communities: a framework for Health and Community Services, 2004-2009. It sets the Martin government’s broad health and community services agenda up to and beyond the next election. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work that my predecessor in the health portfolio did towards the preparation of this statement.
It sets the path towards better health services, better community services, and a hospital and health service system that works for Territorians, where and when they need it. The task ahead as Health Minister is quite daunting, and I certainly will be taking to it with a great degree of humility. Before I go on to outline those parts of the framework for which I will be responsible, I take this opportunity to say a few words about my new health portfolio.
I approach the job as Health Minister with a very real appreciation of the challenge that lies before us. Health and health services are a complex business. Needs and expectations are always high, and resources for expenditure on health services are always limited. Distance and lack of infrastructure pose an additional challenge to the delivery of services to people living in remote and regional areas in the Territory. In fact, it is for these reasons that I approach this job with a great deal of humility, but also with a sense of purpose and excitement about working in a portfolio where there are abundant opportunities to make real gains to the quality of Territorians’ experiences and lives.
The five-year framework that the Minister for Family and Community Services and I launched yesterday sets out this government’s plans to take those opportunities and turn them into real gains for Territorians. In the framework, we have identified six key priority areas for sustained action. Over the next five years, the Martin government will work to:
Giving kids a good start in life and improving the health of the next generation: we have many reasons to focus on giving the children of the Territory the best start in life possible. Almost one-third of the Territory’s population is under 20. What we do now for children, delivering better health and other services, can make enormous improvements to health for many years to come. The Minister for Family and Community Services will expand on this important area in her speech. I want to talk tonight about how we will improve the health of the next generation of Territorians through integrating clinical care and public health approaches across the course of people’s lives.
Current knowledge suggests health outcomes are a cumulative impact of both risk and protective factors throughout life, beginning with the prenatal period and early infancy. At present, caring for sick babies, particularly Aboriginal babies, is a significant area of hospital activity. This is an indication of the seriousness of conditions affecting some Aboriginal newborns and a reflection of the adverse influences during pregnancy. With a relatively young population and high fertility and birth rates in the Territory, ensuring access to effective antenatal care in the community can have a significant impact.
Good nutrition and growing up in a stimulating and nurturing environment is now known to have a positive impact on brain development, competence and coping skills of an individual in adult life. Studies suggest that the window of opportunity to make a real impact on learning ability, behaviour and health is in early childhood up to six years of age, and we will focus services for that period. It is clear that by working towards ensuring more kids grow up in a supportive environment, will have positive impacts on their health and wellbeing. It is also clear that children who grow up in that environment will be better able to learn at school, to gain employment, and to contribute to their community. This is an important element in helping to break the cycle of dysfunction that is evident in many of our remote communities.
We are currently recruiting child health professionals to work in remote and rural areas of the Territory. This child health initiative will mean that rural and remote communities will have better access and greater support from a range of professionals including audiologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, Aboriginal health workers and nutritionists. This initiative will result in better child health monitoring, prompt treatment of health problems, and increased access to specialised treatments. The Building Healthier Communities framework will be a catalyst for all areas of the health and community services sector that work with children and families to work in tandem. Together they can transform the experience of children and families and help ensure our next generation is a healthier one, better placed for a good start in life.
Getting serious about Aboriginal health: this government is committed to ensuring our health and community services system delivers better health for all Territorians. The bulk of Territorians living in our urban centres and towns share a health profile similar to the rest of Australia and other first world nations. We live long and healthy lives. We have access to services that are equal to or better than comparable to the cities and towns anywhere else in Australia. Our hospitals are of a high standard, staffed by highly-trained, dedicated health professionals and support staff. Our families have access to high-quality child care, aged care and other community services. In that sense, we can be proud of health and community services system.
However, we all know that it is a very different picture for up to a third of the Territory’s population. Indigenous Territorians, a generation after self-government, are still dying on average nearly 20 years younger than the rest of us. Many indigenous Territorians do not have access to the same level of service that other people in the Territory do, both in terms of where the services are offered and whether they match the standards that we, as Territorians, should all enjoy.
My colleague, the Minister for Family and Community Services, and I are committed to tackling these challenges, and we are committed to tackling them with a sense of urgency. We do not underestimate the challenge, but action must begin now. Our Building Healthier Communities framework signals our commitment to that work. We are determined to move beyond the good intentions and the rhetoric. In the end, it is results on the ground that count.
To make a difference in the lives of Aboriginal people, we have to ensure that across the whole of government we provide the support and services that will allow Aboriginal people to take responsibility for their health. This work must be based on sound and practical working relationships developed with Aboriginal groups, organisations, and with the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory. We are seeking pathways to work together to make real and sustained improvements. This work will also be based on sound data and good evidence so that Aboriginal people are getting the best health care and so communities can work together with the department to find local solutions that will work on the ground, recognising always that the core, non-negotiable element is the availability of primary health care services.
Our renewed focus on Aboriginal health will affect every part of our health and community services system. This will require close and ongoing attention to many discrete factors. However, year by year, we want to be able to see some measurable progress and we are committed to this. In the coming months, I will present a five-year Aboriginal health action plan which will be driven by our new Office of Aboriginal Health in consultation with the Aboriginal health sector. The principles that underpin the Aboriginal health action plan will be the same as those in the framework: a commitment to strong working relationships with the Aboriginal community; to evidence and understanding cultural factors; and to directing our work and our resources to those areas that promise the most in terms of sustainable health gains.
Creating better pathways for health services: another commitment in our Building Healthier Communities framework is to create better pathways to health services. Our health and community services should ideally be provided as close to the place as Territorians live, as practically possible, and we will work towards that goal. This is important for the suburbs and for the bush. For hospital services, we will continue to work to improve the scope and quality of the hospital service available in the Territory by building on the range of services that have already been established in our two larger hospitals. We will continue to work to improve access to primary healthcare. We will push the Commonwealth to provide more resources for better support and for allied health services at local level. We will continue to push the Commonwealth to recognise the unique circumstances of the Territory.
We will also continue to act on our commitments on the recruitment and retention of nurses and Aboriginal health workers. We will move to increase the supply of doctors for the Territory in cooperation with the Commonwealth government, the general practice divisions and other professional groups. Establishing renal dialysis units in communities, which I will talk about later in more detail, is a good practical example of our commitment to ensure accessibility of health services in the remote parts of the Territory and an essential element of our push on Aboriginal health.
We will also tackle remoteness by a new emphasis on information and communications technology to extend services such as ear and eye health, psychiatry, and antenatal care into regional areas. Another important commitment in this area is we will develop and expand the Specialist Outreach Medical Service to increase the delivery of medical, surgical and obstetric services, for example, in the communities where people live. It is critical for the Territory that all Territorians can access health and community services where they need them and we will work towards that goal.
Closing our service gaps: after being in the portfolio only a short time it is apparent that there are some key areas on which we must focus our attention. The health service needs of a population change over time and it is clear that through the years of neglect, a number of service areas in our health system have failed to keep up with the changing needs of Territorians. This government is determined to turn that situation around.
In the area of kidney disease, renal disease in the Territory is continuing to rise. We are determined to tackle this area of chronic ill health, to stem its increasing incidence, and reduce the social dislocation imposed on people forced to move away from their communities for treatment and the management of their condition. Credit where it is due - the previous government correctly identified the immerging burden of kidney disease concentrated in the Aboriginal population and introduced a number of measures including the Preventable Chronic Diseases Strategy. We have gone much further with our decision to move care closer to home for people with end stage renal disease and thereby reduce the social dislocation of separation from kin and community. Last year, we funded renal dialysis units at Tennant Creek, Galiwinku, Groote Eylandt and in Palmerston.
We also provided financial support to the Western Desert Nganampa Walytja Palyantjaku Tjutaku Aboriginal Corporation in their endeavours to establish dialysis in the Kintore Community. My apologies to Pintubi speakers for my rather difficult effort there! This service delivery reform has been welcomed in remote areas and we plan to open new dialysis centres in Ramingining, Santa Teresa and Maningrida, followed by new centres in Wadeye, Katherine and Numbulwar.
Our response to renal disease is, of course, more than treatment and management. Over the next five years we will concentrate on a more solid implementation of the Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy. Staffing numbers in remote health services will be increased with additional remote area nurses, Aboriginal health workers and community child health workers to be based in remote communities across the Territory. The Northern Territory is already acknowledged nationally and internationally to have achieved excellence in the development of evidence-based protocols to assist in the prevention, early detection and management of chronic diseases. We will build on this expertise by progressively implementing the standard protocols in remote community clinics across the Northern Territory. Regular audits will be carried out to check adherence to the chronic diseases treatment protocols. The systematic implementation of the protocols will be supported by relevant training to ensure our enhanced remote health work force will have the skills they need.
At the same time, we are developing integrated programs which will be designed to catch people with chronic renal insufficiency earlier so that with lifestyle change and treatment they may be able to delay or avoid the need for dialysis.
Oral health is another area of neglect that this government has been addressing. These services have been integrated and are now run as a Territory-wide service, as recommended in the Bansemer Review. This structure will enable a redistribution of current dental resources to ensure an equitable level of oral health service across the Territory. We are committed to increasing access to these services. While we have to acknowledge the reality of operating in a climate of international and national work force shortages, we are currently undertaking an aggressive recruitment campaign for dentists for the Territory, and we hope to see some positive outcomes soon.
HIV Aids: the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted disease in the Territory is an area that requires sustained attention over the next few years. With the highest rates of sexually transmitted disease in Australia, we must act. We will be looking closely at the effectiveness of existing programs and services. We are developing a long-overdue strategy for the prevention and management of sexually transmitted infections and blood-borne viruses, which will be underpinned by additional funding from next financial year of $2m per year, which rises to $2.5m after that. These are three areas for close attention. The Minister for Community Services will outline further work in her portfolio area in her statement.
Strengthening the health system: part 2 of the framework deals with the support measures that we will be taking to strengthen the health system itself. I will move now to the details of those developments.
Building quality health and community services: first, I want to talk about our drive to improve standards across the Territory. The Bansemer Review recommended that the department be organised around discrete program areas rather than the failed funder-purchaser-provider model, which showed more faith in some mythical health ‘market’ than in professional evidence and leadership. The department has now identified program areas for hospitals and the different community services. It has programs for other health services, including remote and public health services, and program areas that provide vital organisational support and corporate services.
Networking: a major benefit flowing from the program model is the NT-wide hospital network that has been established and now links our five public hospitals into one system; five battleships into one navy, if you like. Working as one system has distinct advantages. We have already seen senior RDH specialists working in the intensive care and anaesthetic services in Alice Springs Hospital. Suddenly, everyone is watching out for the entire hospital network, not just for their own patch. The hospital network will bring other benefits by streamlining recruitment, improved support for new staff, and enhanced professional development and training. Instead of each hospital purchasing equipment and goods, it will be done by the network and thereby accrue some economies of scale.
Clinical collaboration: a related development to the hospital network is the concept of clinical streaming where specialists who work primarily in Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals now offer their expertise and leadership across the continuum of care and contribute to discussions of standards, including primary health care. Senior specialists have long provided services on an outreach basis to remote communities, and contributed to the development of primary care guidelines such as the CARPA guidelines, which is the treatment bible for all primary health care workers in the Northern Territory. Clinical Reference Groups are being established to bring together specialist doctors and other professionals involved in clinical services so that they can identify the best practice for our health system and promote the use of evidence-based care. These have already been established in the areas of renal, critical care and palliative care. Other areas of practice will follow.
Standards: one of the main benefits of this program-led model is the ability to set and monitor standards of care across all regions. My mantra is ‘standardisation and then customisation’. We must first define our core business, key priorities and non-negotiable programs and the standards to which they must operate. Only then can we look at how best to deliver those in the different local circumstances that characterise the Northern Territory. As member for Stuart, I have picked up some of the reaction to the restructure in the region. Some people fear it may mean a loss of local control and that all decisions will be made in Darwin. I can certainly reassure people in my area that this will not be the case.
The work on appropriate standards will include all regions and be reviewed regularly. Once decisions are made, local regions will decide how best to implement those standards in their region, but by monitoring and holding people to accepted standards, will erase the Berrimah Line perception that Darwin people are somehow favoured. Defining standards is critical to the operation of our health and community care system, and we will ensure that non-government organisations, GP divisions, and the Aboriginal community-controlled health sector are kept involved.
The commitment to accounting for the safety and quality of services provided is a major cultural change flowing from the Bansemer recommendations. We must account for safety and quality with the same rigour that we account for dollars spent. In Australia, the landmark Quality in Australian Health Care study, conducted in 1996, revealed a high rate of preventable deaths in Australian hospitals, many of which could be fairly described as treatment-related. The release of that study stimulated vigorous media and political debate and led to the formation of the National Safety and Quality Council, and the incorporation of ‘quality funding’ into Australian Health Care Agreements.
Improved clinical governance is one important development that will enhance safety. Better clinical governance will be achieved through developing a framework which ensures the highest possible safety and quality of clinical care. The crucial element, and the hardest element to get right, is the partnership between clinicians and managers, with both sharing responsibility for clinical quality. We are actively promoting such partnerships across the department and are determined to get them right.
We are also committed to changing the health system culture, moving away from the ‘culture of blame’, where the individual is singled out, towards a learning and systems-based approach that acknowledges that all human beings err sometimes and that systems need to be designed with that in mind. If we continue to punish innocent mistakes, we will be doomed to put up with a system that does not improve and one where individuals are too scared to take responsibility. We are determined to move beyond that. Bruce Barraclough, president of the Australian Council on Safety and Quality, has described the safety and quality agenda as being about ‘building good systems around good professionals’, and that is our aim.
To promote improved clinical governance in the Northern Territory, we will set up a Northern Territory-wide Safety and Quality Council to complement the current Acute Care Quality Committee which focusses on crucial hospital issues. This new council will act to promote innovation, collaboration, and improve safety standards right across the health system.
There is no quick fix, but there are a number of key programs and processes that we will establish:
I will also ask the NT Safety and Quality Council to look at the issue of cultural safety in mainstream systems dealing with high numbers of Aboriginal clients.
Creating better ways of working together: to build a healthier community we need to commit to working with all areas of government, and with the community and its organisations. The complex social realities in the Northern Territory, which impact on the health and wellbeing of many Territorians, will never be solved by one department acting alone. This government’s focus on jobs, education, housing, regional development and community safety will underpin the successful implementation of the Building Healthier Communities framework. We know that having a good education, getting a job and living in proper housing are critical factors to good health, as is being able to live in a safe and functioning community. The government’s commitment to economic development of the Territory, to jobs and training, to implementing the Collins report, and to tackling crime and providing the resources for crime prevention and safer communities will all contribute to building healthier communities.
Within the health sector, I have already talked about the need to work in partnership with Aboriginal organisations to achieve our goal of better health for those Territorians. But it does not stop there. We will strengthen and deepen the relationships with all organisations working in the health sector. We will implement this framework with a real commitment to consultation, working together and relying on each other’s expertise to devise practical initiatives and solutions. We will provide the resources to the community sector and to peak bodies so they are able to contribute to this joint work. We will establish proper advisory structures so stakeholders contribute to our policy and strategic directions. We will also increase the involvement of consumers and carers across the health and community services system.
One way we will do this is by acting on the Bansemer recommendation to increase community involvement in the department’s policy development and service delivery process by establishing a Health Advisory Council, a Family and Community Services Advisory Council, and by upgrading the existing Disability Advisory Board to council status. The Health Advisory Council will report to me. I will be in a position to make further announcements on this very soon.
I will now turn to how we will support professionals working in our system. Our people are vital to our success. We will address the weaknesses in human resource management identified in the Bansemer review so that our work force feels safe, valued, respected and supported to perform their roles. We will develop and implement a work force training and development strategy, and strengthen our relationship with local tertiary institutions so graduates have the best possible education and training for the Northern Territory.
Recruitment of a skilled work force will continue to be a major challenge for the period 2004-2009 as national and international shortages reduce the available labour market, particularly in dentistry, and some categories of allied health such as pharmacists and nursing speciality areas. We will initiate and support national initiatives to work to address these shortages.
Retention of existing staff is the other part of the equation. We are keen to retain people who are prepared to embrace the challenges and opportunities of working in the Territory. We will develop and implement strategies to recruit and retain quality staff, including by encouraging a coordinated response to accommodation, particularly in remote areas. We will recognise formally the role of nurse-practitioners in rural and remote areas, and link recruitment to training opportunities. Importantly, we will continue to build on work to protect the safety of our staff. We will also strive to ensure that the departmental work force reflects the diversity of the Territory community.
Creating a health information communications network: moving to the final element of the framework which will build a stronger health and community services system, a particular passion of mine is exploring the ways that information and communication technology can enhance the day-to-day working conditions and family lives of our people and the communities they serve. The framework will be a catalyst for change in this important area. Most of the 67 departmental remote health centres do not have access to on-line data communications. Only 17 have access to Internet-based e-mail through a two-way satellite service, but this is slow and cannot be securely connected to the government’s on-line wide area network. We cannot continue to operate this way. Building a robust and extensive health information and communications network will provide, for the first time, full access for remote area staff to the government network, Internet and a secure electronic mail system.
Through this network, remote health practitioners can be supported by on-line health information for their day-to-day jobs, and on-line training to continue their professional development while they work in the more remote areas of the Territory. The development of this network will also be an important step to increase the support provided to the 600 to 700 staff that reside in, or provide visiting services to, remote areas. Family links can be maintained more effectively through video-conferencing, and access to television broadcasts and Internet provides personal and professional support to our remote workers and will help to support our retention strategies.
Expanding public access to health information is also an important part of our plan. We will seek to build upon the NT Healthconnect trial, which is a giant Commonwealth-NT funded demonstration project in Katherine and surrounding Aboriginal communities. Healthconnect encourages people to access health information on-line, including their personal health information.
I will now turn to the next step on the path to building healthier communities across the Territory; and that is implementation. Making the best use of available resources is one of the tasks before us. Working in innovative and creative ways is the solution. We need to capitalise on the skills, expertise and commitment of the people who work in the Department of Health and Community Services. We need to implement this framework with a strong commitment to real partnerships and proper consultation with the community sector, the unions and other key stakeholders. We must also work with our community. We cannot impose healthier choices on Territorians, be they indigenous or non-indigenous Territorians. The paternalistic imposition of policies and service delivery models have not produced better health outcomes. Instead, we must involve communities in a process that ensures we deliver the services in the form that they want and will use.
The framework we launched yesterday sets out the government’s vision and priorities for the Department of Health and Community Services over the next five years. It builds on the solid foundations that have now been laid in the Department of Health and Community Services through implementing the recommendations of the Bansemer Review. The Martin government has listened to what Alan Bansemer had to tell us and we have acted.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the Department of Health and Community Services for their resilience in the face of change required to implement the report - never an easy process - for their hard work and their commitment to improving the system within which they work. Your work has created a department which is now in a position to work to implement this framework over the coming years and to make a real difference to the health of Territorians.
Words are cheap in health policy and the grand plans can often be merely that. We are determined this framework will not fall into that trap. Implementation action starts from today. The framework will directly inform business planning throughout the department. If properly implemented, with thorough consultation and true partnerships with the health and community services sector, the framework will ensure that the next generation of Territorians are healthier than the last.
In conclusion, in outlining our vision for health services, I stress the urgency I feel in taking on this task, but I also recognise that it is not possible to effect major change over night. We have set out this blueprint for a change across a five-year time frame that will require a sustained effort, but also a degree of flexibility so that the system of the future remains responsive to the changing needs of Territorians. It will also take determination and a commitment to follow through to ensure that these are not just empty words. I have that determination and that commitment. I look forward to reporting to the House as we move forward to implement the Building Healthier Communities framework.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a strange situation that we find ourselves in here tonight because we are going to have two statements from two ministers. What has occurred since the last sittings of this parliament is that we have seen the Minister for Health and Community Services sacked and in her place the ministership role divided between two ministers. We have a Minister for Health and a minister for community services. So, tonight, we have to deal with that in that two statements are going to be read and I, as the shadow for health and community services, have to respond to one that I have heard and the second one which I have only been able to read. It creates a situation here in parliament which I guess we are going to have to deal with as time goes by. I am interested to learn, and perhaps the minister in his response may like to make a comment about it, as to how it is going to affect, for example, the estimates process when we come to that, how you will be dividing your time there as well.
So turning to the first statement from the Minister for Health, quite frankly, it is about time that we got this. The Labor Party has been in government for over two years now and, quite frankly, we recently lost the best minister the Territory has ever had - according to her view - and in that time very little was done. We eventually got the Bansemer Report done after she pontificated over it for over 12 months and not a lot of action afterwards. So this looks like action is beginning to occur. I am pleased to see it.
Although, from reading it, there are a lot of platitudes in it and much of it sounds like stuff that has been said before. I put on the Hansard record a quote from somebody - and I will explain who in a moment - but the quote from this person is:
That is a quote from our current Chief Minister when she was responding to a statement here in parliament five years ago. So often, we hear these words. It will be very interesting to see what actually changes as a result of these statements.
Going to the first statement from the Minister for Health, I note that some of the initiatives that the minister says he is going to be pursuing, for example, the recruitment of a skilled work force:
That is it. There is no real indication of what the new government is going to do. There is nothing to say how many extra staff or how we will be able to measure the success of this program. Another one is to develop and implement strategies for retention. You would think that after nearly three years in government, we would get some real strategies and action as to what is going to be happening.
It is really quite a shame as far as I am concerned that our new Health minister has wasted his first statement to this House with something that really does not have any substance. It is a lot of platitudes strung together, the sorts of things that we have all heard before. What needs to be done is work on the major problems the system currently faces. For example, we have excessive waiting times for people needing admission into our hospitals. It has been reported in the paper within the last couple of weeks that one fellow had to wait for three days in the emergency department on a trolley for a bed at Royal Darwin Hospital. The same weekend, I am told, that 20 people were waiting for admission at Alice Springs Hospital. I have been told it was 20 people in Alice Springs Hospital and up to 30 people waiting in the emergency department for admission to Royal Darwin Hospital and one fellow, the one who ended up in the paper, was on a trolley for three days waiting for admission and eventual surgery to a fractured jaw.
This issue has come up time and time again in the last few years. There was a time early in 2003 when the media published quite graphic photos of trolleys lined up in the corridors of the old emergency department. At that time, the then minister said the problem was being caused by a ‘flu epidemic’, which subsequently the nurses objected very strongly. It was not a ‘flu epidemic’. The problem lies in the fact that there are not enough beds in our major public hospitals in the Northern Territory.
At Royal Darwin Hospital some years ago the then government closed down wards 5A and 3B. Ward 5A was closed down because Cowdy Ward, the psychiatric unit, was built in the grounds of Royal Darwin Hospital. So the original psychiatric unit, which was on 5A, was quite reasonably closed down. Patients were moved to the new area. The old area of 5A was turned into offices for staff. After that, Ward 3B was closed down. Another 36 beds were closed because the private hospital, something the CLP government facilitated, opened in the grounds of the Royal Darwin Hospital and, quite reasonably, 3B was closed and once again converted to offices.
More recently, at Alice Springs Hospital, there was the development, an initiative of the CLP, of a private ward at Alice Springs Hospital. That did not get legs under the Labor government and has since been converted to offices. So we have problems with lack of beds. For example, surgical cases at the moment are being treated on the midwifery floor at Royal Darwin Hospital, and I can assure members that that goes down like a lead balloon with midwives. There is very little action occurring with the hospice. People in this community are looking for it. Nothing yet. Finally, another problem with regards to hospital beds at Royal Darwin Hospital is that early last year, in fact it was Christmas 2002, the government closed down the rehabilitation unit at Royal Darwin Hospital, which shut eight beds and moved those patients into the medical ward at Royal Darwin Hospital, once again filling up beds which used to be open to more general clients. We have a problem in the Northern Territory at the moment with the provision of hospital beds.
Another problem that we have, which is not addressed in the statement, is the issue that is happening right now with the lack of specialist staff, for example, anaesthetists. Recently, in Alice Springs, it has been reported to me that the hospital was in dire straits with regards to obtaining an anaesthetist, so much so that they had to go to a recruiting agency in Queensland, which has sent over an anaesthetist to provide a service for 60 days. The cost of all that, over the 60 days, is in the vicinity of $120 000. That would obviously include accommodation and air fares, but, all up, about $120 000 for 60 days work. That sort of money, if doubled, would pay for one year of a full-time salaried anaesthetist at Alice Springs Hospital. The going rate for an anaesthetist at Royal Darwin Hospital is $220 000 a year. Alice Springs Hospital to date has refused to pay that sort of money. Why on earth would somebody who is an anaesthetist work at Alice Springs Hospital for less than the going rate? I have no idea. The end result has been that a number of anaesthetists over the years have made enquiries to work at Alice Springs Hospital and have had no joy. The end result is this emergency activity of recruiting for a short time period at a massive cost, in the vicinity of $2000 a day, an anaesthetist from interstate - a stop gap measure.
Another issue with staff not addressed adequately in this statement is, the Labor Party promise of an extra 75 nurses to the Northern Territory during their term. I have been monitoring this situation since Labor came to government, and the result has been disappointing to say the least. Nurses would have believed that that election promise meant that extra nurses were going to go into the day-to-day work force area, not squirreled off into some sort of project area on the first floor of Royal Darwin Hospital, pop them in to add up numbers into education, which is important. However, they would have expected those extra staff would have been going into the wards of our hospitals so that the workload for practising nurses at the time of the election would have been reduced. That was a reasonable assumption to make from that election promise. To date, there has been very little sign of extra nurses.
When I have pursued this issue, I have been told, ‘Well, we do not actually create position numbers …’, that someone like me could actually count in an organisation, ‘… what we do is we allocate the funds into the budget to pay for the salaries’. What that means to me is that nurses are being expected to work double time, overtime, things like that, these are the salaries paying for it, I believe creating a work force that may be practising in a dangerous manner, instead of saying, on each ward, here are two extra positions, you can see them, you can count them. The new minister for community services recently announced the addition of two extra Aboriginal mental health workers, and that is a good thing. She is able to point to those extra staff, she is able to point to those position numbers. Where are 75 extra nursing position numbers in the Northern Territory? By now we should be seeing at least 60 and we do not seem to have it.
The minister in his statement talks about the recruitment and retention of specialist staff such as nurses. I believe what we should be doing here in the Territory is putting an extra effort into growing our own nurses; really putting an effort into getting our Territorians to enrol at the Darwin university and to do their nurse education here, and then putting them through the practical programs at our Territory hospitals. There is a problem now in that those students at our universities are having trouble gaining practical places in the hospitals. We need to do more than what is happening now to ensure that we retain those nurses as Territorians and keep them here in the Territory.
Another disappointment over the last year or so has been the deterioration of the dental services. It was reported recently in the paper that the government is making a move now to centralise our dental services, particularly with regards to the school-based dental programs. One of my local primary schools, Larrakeyah Primary School, is particularly disappointed with this. That is Larrakeyah Primary, spitting distance from just about any central service you can imagine here in Darwin. Goodness knows what parents and families of the slightly more remote schools - perhaps the schools in Humpty Doo and Berry Springs - might be thinking. The reality is going to be that the government is not prepared to pay the money needed to upgrade the physical surroundings and the accommodation for the dentists and the dental therapists at the schools. Rather than spend that money on the infrastructure, they are going to cut back on the services in the schools. The onus will be on families to be able to logistically get their kids to a dental service when, of course, the reality was that for many children, the much easier thing to do would have been to see a dentist or a dental therapist at their school. This is a disappointing reduction in services.
Another area that has seen a reduction in health services in the last 12 months is the area of community health services, particularly urban community health services. Of course I am rather biased because I am not happy at all with the fact that the Mitchell Street clinic has been closed. This was a set up by the Labor government. What was done in order to cut costs was that, over a period of time, the clinic was ordered to reduce its services. Therefore, instead of having a primary health clinic and a baby clinic run four days a week, it was reduced to two days a week. The end result, of course, was a reduction in clients because the clinics were not open. Therefore, with that wonderful knowledge, the then minister said, ‘There has been a 7% fall in client usage’. Surprise surprise! I would have thought it would have been more. ‘Let us close it up and send people away’. That has gone down like a lead balloon in this area, that’s for sure, with people with health problems, and people in need of primary health care services. Before, problems were nipped in the bud before they ended up in our hospitals and emergency services. Primary health care services in the urban setting have been reduced - disappointing.
I do not know what is going on with the Darwin urban community health centres in particular, but I have had a number of complaints from people who are finding it harder and harder to gain the assistance of community health services, particularly the nursing staff. My concern is that the staffing situation is not adequate in those areas. For example, people with disabilities are finding it harder to get a community health care nurse to provide service; and the hospital is having trouble discharging patients on Thursdays and Fridays because of the difficulty of being able to slot them into being cared for and assisted by community health care services on the weekends. This is a problem that needs looking at. My concern is that the current service is not coping with the demand.
They are some comments with regards to the Minister for Health’s statement.
I will now make some comments with regards to the Minister for Family and Community Services’ statement. I congratulate the new minister on this statement. In comparison to the previous one, I believe it has more substance to it. There are more hooks you can hang a hat on, more things you can see, and I suspect the minister may have had some real input into this statement.
It is good to see in the statement a continued emphasis on child protection and working with, rather than against, families. We have had some situations during last year where child protection services have been in the forefront of our minds, with activities in the media and discussions that we have been having. There has been concern, for example, about the high incidence of sexually transmitted infections amongst some children and the concern as to what is happening with those children that they should actually be presenting. - these are children as young as you can get, that they should be presenting with sexually transmitted infections. It became quite apparent that the child protection area has not been coping with the workload that they have had and it is good that the government has injected significant funds into that area. It is a little bit disappointing that if you look at the funding that is going into child protection that it is a fairly small amount of money to begin with, but it is certainly a start. I will be watching with interest to see how things go there and I wish the department well in their efforts to improve child protection services.
One of the areas that I know they are going to be looking at, and the minister picks it up in her statement as well, is the area of foster care. This is an area of particular concern in the Northern Territory. It is very difficult to find foster care parents. It is obviously not something that many people in this day and age put their hands up for as many people in families have both parents working and have enough stress as it is, I would suspect, coping with their own children. To put your hand up to be a foster parent is something that we should all be applauding. It can be very difficult for them because the children they have to care for are often children who have some very special needs and can be quite demanding. This is a valuable area the department is working in and it is obviously an area that needs a great deal of support from us as a community.
I also note with interest the minister for community services comments on providing extra services to people with a disability. This is an area of growing concern in the Northern Territory as we have an increase in incidents of people with disabilities because we are ageing as a community. Many people with disabilities and their loved ones and carers struggle especially with the arguably low level of services provided. The more you move away from the central city areas the more difficult it is for people with a disability and their carers to access services and support. For quite some time it has also been very difficult to train, recruit and retain carers. I am sure agencies such as Somerville and Carpentaria Disability Services would echo these sentiments. These agencies put a great deal of work into training, recruiting and trying to retain carers for their clients, but it is a continuing struggle for them as the carers, I believe, are not adequately paid by the system. It is a very demanding job for people to be doing in many circumstances.
I am sure for many carers it can be very pleasant work as well, but for many carers it is a very difficult area to work in and Australia as a whole needs to look very carefully at how we are going to work and what sort of resources we are going to provide people who are prepared to work in the area of disability services, and to provide the care that people with a disability need, in particular, to help them to remain active and visible in our community.
On that particular issue as well, in the Northern Territory one of the issues carers raise with me is their difficulty in accessing respite for their families. For example, if you have a family where one member is dependent and requires care, whoever is providing that care really has to struggle from time to time, and one of the things they desperately need is an opportunity to have some respite. For example, agencies such as the Uniting Church – what is their organisation?
A member: Anglicare.
Ms Carter: No, not Anglicare.
A member: St Mary’s.
Ms CARTER: No. Anyway, the Uniting Church, through their programs, runs a respite house in the electorate of Fannie Bay. That is a very good service, and my congratulations to them for it. These are the sort of things that we need to be combining so that our carers can remain invigorated and can remain providing services to Australians in need. I look forward to positive outcomes from this framework in the area of the provision of disability services.
I was hoping that the minister for community services would use her first ministerial statement to put some real meat on the bones of the substance abuse issue in the Territory. As members are aware, the minister was the Chair of the substance abuse committee. I am a member of that committee and we have travelled around the Northern Territory looking at problems and investigating situations over the last two years or so. We had an interim report delivered by the minister many months ago and it is now gathering dust on the Notice Paper. It is disappointing that we have not been able to debate that issue fully at the interim report stage. It is now disappointing to know that another committee has been formed, which, to a degree I believe, is superseding the original committee. There has not been much action come out of the substance abuse committee. I am hoping that the minister in her new role will be working to assist that committee of which she was once the Chair, and encourage it to get some finalised recommendations out so that we can see some real action in this area. Substance abuse, as we all know, is an area of major concern for Territorians regardless of where you live or what your perspective on the issue may be.
Obviously, for people who are suffering at a personal level from substance abuse, because they are using substances, and their families and friends, it is a major problem, creating issues for them, their children, their parents and, of course, it is also an issue for those of us who live in the vicinity of those people and the impact they have on our social environment. Whichever committee it might be, let’s get things wrapped up and start coming out with some recommendations and some action so that the government can take steps in this important area. I know, for example, the area of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the department is floundering to a degree, looking for some direction. There have been big disappointments since the days of the Living with Alcohol program, which was going so well. We need to get going with some sort of strategy with regard to substance abuse in the Territory.
I was also disappointed because in this statement there was very little comment with regard to mental health services. Mental health services in the Territory often tie in with substance abuse, but even if they don’t, Mental Health Services is an area of increasing need. For example, in Darwin, we have Cowdy Ward, which sits in the grounds of Royal Darwin Hospital. This ward is meant to be an 18-bed ward and it has been reported to me on a number of occasions that it was significantly overcrowded from time to time. I took the opportunity to have a tour of the ward and I spoke to the staff. It became quite apparent that it is not uncommon to have mattresses on the floor in Cowdy Ward. It is not uncommon for clients to have to share a room, and here I must take issue. There was a newspaper article during the year that implied that patients do not mind that, but in fact I was told on the tour that the patients do not like to share a room. I am sure you can imagine what it could be like when both of you have mental health problems.
We have a major problem at Cowdy Ward with overcrowding. About a month ago I spoke to a nurse who is involved in that area and his comment was that the workload pressure is horrendous - horrendous pressure from the work on Cowdy Ward. We need to do things to increase our inpatient capacity for mental health services, especially at the Cowdy Ward.
Another issue that came up over the last few weeks in Darwin was the sad story of a woman from Palmerston whose daughter probably has schizophrenia, but it has not been diagnosed. Her daughter is aggressive and violent. She cannot live in the home because of the aggression and the violence she perpetrates on her parents and younger siblings. The end result, because nobody can cope with her, is that from time to time she ends up on the streets. When I investigated this and was talking to Mum, it transpires that there is no residential facility for young people in the Northern Territory with mental health problems. Cowdy Ward is reluctant to take a person under the age of 18 years because, quite obviously, they do not have a very nice environment, and there is nothing else. So, we have a young girl who refuses treatment because she is mentally ill, we have parents despairing as to what to do with her, we have a department where the offhand advice one day at the Tamarind Centre was, ‘You should take her to Queensland, they have facilities there’, - which Mum did, but because it was such a short term moment, they had to come back to Darwin. The end result is a young girl of 15 who is struggling to be cared for in our urban setting.
The minister for Health has spoken about accountability in his statement, and, quite frankly, I wish Territorians luck on the issue of accountability in health services. Last year, we had the estimates process - disappointing, a limited period of time for me to be able to ask questions. We sought information from the department under FOI on the estimates information. I received a great pile of information at the cost of $2000 to the Leader of the Opposition’s office. In this FOI stuff - 500 pages, 200 were denied to us; page after page, which I seek leave to table.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: Page after page of information blacked out. This is renal services. What on earth could be a secret about renal services? We have major problems with accountability here, we do not get much time to explore issues in estimates, and when we go to FOI we get blank pages. I will close with a comment from our health minister, the day that he was appointed health minister, his quote was, ‘I suppose it is the first time in my life I have ever had a health problem’, and I think he has.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss how I, as Minister for Family and Community Services, will contribute to this government’s commitment to Building Healthier Communities in the Territory. Before I begin, I put on record my appreciation of those who work to support families and communities, both within my department and in non-government organisations. Providing family and community services is not always easy. It can be a harrowing as well as rewarding experience. It is an area where there are no simple answers and no simple solutions. It takes a particular calibre of person to tackle this on a daily basis and, sad to say, I feel that, all too often, their work goes unrecognised. Today, I would like to record my respect for those workers across the Territory, who provide services for children, family and communities.
This government is committed to making a difference to families and communities in the Territory. As part of this commitment, soon after coming to office we comprehensively reviewed the Department of Health and Community Services. Subsequently, we have spent a lot of time and effort on reforming the system, on making sure that the basics of administration and financial management within the department are right. We have injected $100m extra into a system that has been affected by years of under-funding. We have the system on to a firm footing. It is now time to build on this foundation.
My colleague, the Minister for Health, has outlined the major and important components of the government’s vision for the Territory. I stand now to outline another important component of that vision: this government’s commitment to the wellbeing of families and communities within a confident, growing and diverse Territory.
Before I outline what we will be doing in each of these important areas, I will first describe our general philosophical approach to meeting these challenges. Our focus will be on the family and how its links and networks can be strengthened and supported. It is from strong and well-functioning families that individuals draw much of their strength when faced with troubling times, and from where they learn the lessons of resilience and caring. I know from my own experience how true this is. In the early 1980s, I was a single working mother of three young children and I would not have got through that time without the support of my mother and other family members. The grandparents of my children were the cornerstone upon which our family was built.
The basis of this government’s emphasis on family is practical. We know that families form the building block, the cornerstone as I said before, of many Territorians’ lives. Because of this, strong, well-functioning, well-supported families are vital for the good health of Territorians. We also know - and I like so many Aboriginal people can testify to this from personal experience - how destructive the disruption of family life can be. In particular, we should remember the legacy of the removal of children from their families which continues to affect large numbers of our citizens today. Many people have grown up without mothers and fathers and kin around them, and they have had to construct or reconstruct their own networks. It is little wonder that some have difficulty being mothers and fathers themselves.
It is stating the obvious to say that we are all born into a family, and it is also obvious that there is no one model of the family. This is especially true of the Northern Territory. The geographic, cultural, economic and social influences that shape people’s family life and childhood are different. One in five Territorians was born overseas and about three out of every 10 are Aboriginal, making the Northern Territory a very culturally diverse community. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2001 the Territory had over 21 200 couple families with children, 13 500 couple families without children, 7680 one-parent families, and more than 780 other families. All up, there are more than 43 000 families in the Northern Territory, and the wellbeing of these families touches every Territorian.
The economic circumstances of Territory families also vary considerably. About one in five families survive on an income of less than $500 a week. Almost half of the single parent families in the Territory live on less than $500 a week and, of these, almost 60% are Aboriginal families. Less than 15% of lone parent Territory families receive a weekly income of greater than $1000 compared to 50% of couple families. Clearly, the circumstances of some families are difficult and challenging. So we know that some families need assistance.
Unemployment, poverty, lack of education, poor health - Territorian families that carry these burdens are likely to have fewer tools to get them out of hardship. The problem is exacerbated if the family is isolated or excluded from society, or feels marginalised and is burdened with situational pressures such as alcohol or other substance abuse. These are conditions that might seem manageable to others but which may trigger a cascade of events leading to tragic consequences. This government faces the challenge of responding to the disadvantage that families face.
Much has been said in recent years of the problem of welfarism. This critique has pointed to a real problem of how modern states have sometimes sought to assist those in need - problems that, in my view, stem largely from treating people as passive recipients of government or private health. The problems of so-called welfare dependence have led some to calls for assistance to those in need to be cut back. The theory is that, somehow if we take away the safety net, people will no longer fall from the tightrope they sometimes have to walk.
We will work with Territory families. We will never rip away the safety net. What is absolutely clear is that families that have endured long-standing hardship will need support. We are not closing our eyes to the difficulties. We recognise that welfare dependence has caused problems in the past, but the answer is not to withdraw assistance from those in the Territory who need it. Instead, we will provide the services that support and protect people in a way that encourages strength and independence. We will support families and communities, but also encourage them to be active participants in solving the problems they face.
In this, I stand with those in the community who have insisted on honesty and courage. We have to start telling it like it is. We need to confront the truth and then we need to move on. It is time for leaders from all the communities that constitute our Territory - and I am not just talking about Aboriginal communities here - to confront the impact of alcohol, substance abuse and violence on Territory families and children. These are important points for us to remember as we turn our minds to the future and how we tackle the issues. This government understands that it has a critical role in the lives of families that live in this reality. We will work to confront the problems of grog and substance abuse and violence. We will work to support families and children. We will work with those with mental health problems and disabilities and with their carers. We will work with community leaders to build safe communities for Territory families. It is the intention of Building Healthier Communities to work with families to address the conditions that have contributed to their crisis and to support the families’ own efforts at economic and social participation. It combines government and family investments, seeks to draw families into education, training, parenting, caring and community activities as well as promoting key components of individual or community self help.
We cannot ask families to take on their responsibilities if we are not prepared to take on ours as a provider of services. Thus Building Healthier Communities also emphasises the importance of ensuring that government-provided family and community services are sensitive and attuned to the complex conditions of family and individual life in our society. This plan has been carefully thought through. We have looked at the evidence, we have confronted the challenges, we have made informed judgments about where the priorities for action lie. These are the deeds of a government concerned about doing better and being more accountable.
Madam Speaker, let me turn to some of the key elements of Building Healthier Communities that relate to my portfolio. This commitment contains a number of key areas for action. First, I want to see a Territory that gives kids a good start in life. What happens in those first years of life, including the time when women are pregnant, is crucial for creating the platform for our health and wellbeing for years to come. There has been a substantial amount of work conducted over the past two decades that has helped us understand the importance of the early years, and this government has heard those messages. My colleague, minister Toyne, has outlined a number of measures that will make lasting contributions to the health and wellbeing of Territory children including good antenatal care and the standardised management of childhood illnesses. But our vision does not stop there.
I am sure honourable members will agree that the protection of children is one of the most important issues to face the Territory community. This is a shared responsibility involving parents, wider family networks, communities, and a range of government and non-government services including schools, charities and police. Our government’s family and children services program is a matter of high priority. I know it was a first order priority for my predecessor and I acknowledge her commitment. The member for Nightcliff was minister when the new Assistant Secretary for Community Services, Ms Carol Peltola, was recruited, and I am advised, immediately spent time with Ms Peltola to stress that reform begin immediately to improve the balance, framework and performance of our services. The previous minister, it should be noted in the record, went to her Cabinet colleagues pointing out the urgent need for extra funds in the FACS program and won their support for an extra $53m over five years.
I would add to this that Ms Peltola is a very high calibre appointment. She has worked in three jurisdictions in senior roles, most recently as the key advisor for the Gordon Inquiry into child protection matters affecting the Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. With the previous minister’s support, Ms Peltola established a reference group to steer progressive reform of the FACS program and engaged national leaders from the field to workshop with that group.
By last December, when the government announced the injection of new funds, it was also in a position to announce a new guiding framework forecasting fundamental reform. As the new minister responsible for this process, and the redrafting of the Community Welfare Act, I have gone over this record in some detail. I want to stress to the Assembly that I do not want to see the pace slacken. I am emphatic that we do not need a long pause to reconsider these reforms which are based on evidence and the reviews done in at least four other states and territories, specifically Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. We should not wait while yet another report is added to the library of reports in this area.
However, I am sympathetic with the argument that on such an important issue, the process can gain from an independent voice of scrutiny and counsel with direct access to the minister. This is not because of the lack of leadership of senior officials or the reference group, but because this is such an important issue on which I want to be assured that I am in receipt of all relevant input.
For this reason, I will announce shortly the appointment of an independent chairperson for the reference group overseeing the reform for Family and Children’s Services. In announcing this decision, I am also stressing my support for the excellent work already being done under high quality leadership we are fortunate to have.
This government’s child protection reform agenda announced in December focusses on responding to the individual needs of children and family. A crucial part of this commitment is increasing resources to intervene when families are in crisis, but this will not be our only response. We will move the focus of the system to ensure that families who need support are assisted before the crisis occurs. There will be more Child Protection and Family Support workers, more funding to community agencies and a review of the situation of all children in foster care.
Before the end of the life of this parliament, I will also be introducing a bill for a new Community Welfare Act. I will be talking to communities across the Territory about their views, and the bill will reflect our shared learning over the last 20 years about the best ways to support families, protect and care for children, and develop the solid social foundation for the Northern Territory. This bill will place the protection of children within the framework of supporting families and providing the best possible start in life. Our underlying philosophy will continue to be that what we do now for children - delivering better health services, supporting families and working to overcome disadvantage - will have positive effects not just now but for many years to come.
I also want to see in the Territory in which the links of family, kin and community are strengthened so that people can realise their hopes and aspirations and tackle any difficulties they face. As I described earlier, we will provide assistance to families and communities in a way that promotes their strength and independence. There are a number of specific commitments that Building Healthier Communities makes. For example, this government will introduce family group conferencing in order to promote a timely and less adversarial resolution of child safety and care issues. Family group conferences will balance the welfare and justice issues involved in child protection interventions, recognise the cultural diversity of Territory families, and promote the active participation of families in a way not immediately available through existing, more adversarial mechanisms. We believe that family group conferencing properly implemented will build community skills in conflict resolution and decision making. The government is mindful that in building this initiative, we need to respect different cultures but not at the cost of a child’s best interest.
Foster carers provide an alternative family for children who, for one reason or another, have had to be removed from the care of their own families, sometimes for short periods, sometimes for longer. This is traumatic and difficult for all involved. Foster carers themselves cope with much of this and deserve our gratitude and recognition. They take on an enormous responsibility. They are charged with looking after the child, not just in terms of their housing, clothing and nutritional needs, but also their social and emotional development.
This government has already increased the foster care subsidy and funded the Foster Carers Association, but we intend to do more. Planning for the child’s development, their emotional and physical health may require some special and consistent support. The government believes that we can do much more to support carers in this task and we can do more to reduce the disruptions to the child’s development that placement in care might threaten. The government will establish a Looking After Children initiative that will improve the planning of programs for the management of children in care so that these children’s aspirations, needs and wellbeing can be more systematically met.
The government is also establishing a series of initiatives that will help parents. A Territory-wide Parenting Strategy is being developed that will provide a range of resources, education and support, including a Parenting Helpline and Internet site to provide immediate support to parents at those time when they believe they need help. The Parenting Strategy will include efforts that seek to build outcomes from both parents and children. We will look to early intervention, particularly for young families with children who may be exhibiting aggressive and disruptive behaviour because this, we believe, will help the children and the family, and help prevent antisocial behaviours in later life. Good parental education has been shown to build lasting improvements in the behaviour in pre-adolescent children who have behavioural problems. These are examples of the kind of initiatives that we use to help strengthen families and support children.
The third area of action I will outline is that of ensuring that our health and community services system is focussed on meeting the contemporary needs of Territorians. This means meeting emerging needs and, most importantly, putting time and energy and resources into areas which have been neglected for many years. At the top of my list are mental health services and services for those people living with a disability. We inherited a situation where the Northern Territory was the lowest per capita funder of mental health services in the country. This government has already injected an additional $12.7m over three years into mental health services. These funds will strengthen significantly the clinical mental health services and non-government based support services across the Territory. We will employ a principal psychiatrist to advance clinical and service reforms and enhancement across the Territory.
The high need identified in many Aboriginal communities will be confronted through the employment of senior Aboriginal mental health workers to work with communities to find the best ways of helping people with mental health problems. The long-standing need for mental health sub-acute care options in the Territory will also be addressed. By creating step-down and step-up services, we will reduce the length of time that people need to stay in hospital, and these services will also help people with high needs when they first leave hospital.
Complementing these changes will be the expansion of client and carer support services. These enhancements will strengthen community-based care. Together, this package of services will further advance the integration of mental health and related services across the Territory, improving the quality and scope of services to clients. Many people with mental health problems also have substance misuse and other general health problems.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A specialist nurse in Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital and a general practitioner clinic at the community mental health centre in Darwin will begin to address these needs. A working party is also making recommendations about better ways to support people with dual problems of substance misuse and mental illness.
People living with a disability are part of the Territory community. In particular, it is my strong belief that children with a disability are children first. The habit of seeing the disability and not the child must be changed. We know that helping children and parents when they first experience difficulties makes a long lasting impact. We will move to focus on early intervention services so that children with learning and developmental difficulties receive help early. The government will be refocussing service development and delivery, and establishing new initiatives to support Territorians living with a disability, based on serving first those most in need.
Historically, available resources have been directed to particular individuals in need without, however, looking at the whole range of needs across the community. We shall move to bring a greater degree of equity into programs in my portfolio. We will continue, of course, to maintain, as a first principle, the design and delivery of services being attuned to the needs of the individual. This government is committed to the principle that everyone within this community should have access to government and community sector services. This includes people living with a disability. Mainstream services have improved in the past decade in ensuring that these services are accessible to people with a disability, but we intend to go further. Under Building Healthier Communities, programs and policies will be reviewed to ensure that the need and aspirations of people living with a disability are properly and explicitly considered.
Madam Speaker, we all know that substance abuse, the harmful use of alcohol and other drugs, some of them legal, some not, harms our community. High levels of substance abuse holds us back from making progress in many areas, and this government is committed to tackling the problem. Prior to my ministerial appointment I was engaged in the committee work looking at substance misuse in the Northern Territory. I, as do many Territorian families, know of the pain that substance abuse can cause. My colleague, the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, is soon to receive a report on this matter and I intend to work closely with him through its recommendations.
Building Healthier Communities recognises the harmful role that substance misuse plays in the lives of some families and commits us to action. I believe that it is critical to engage the community in efforts to reduce the harm caused by substance abuse and I will be looking to engage Territorians in this work. This government will bring together the people who can advise and make a real impact. We will listen to the experts and to the community as we respond now to the key reports we are receiving. This government has enhanced existing service agencies and supported communities to deal with alcohol and drug problems. We know that the range of agencies do not always put on a united front against substance misuse. Tackling substance abuse is a difficult and challenging area, like many of the responsibilities in my portfolio.
However, I believe we can make a difference in this area and Building Healthier Communities outlines a number of key priorities. Grog, drugs, petrol sniffing, chroming, drinking and smoking robs Territorians of family members, capacity and resources. Again, we recognise that individuals, families and communities must play their part. The government will widen the range of petrol, drug and alcohol detoxification and treatment options and facilities available to Territorians.
I am also pleased that Building Healthier Communities includes a commitment to deal with the complex issue of dual diagnosis; that is, when a client presents with both substance abuse and mental health problems. Earlier this month, staff in Alice Springs raised this very issue with me, seeking government action to resolve these issues so that people in serious need can receive the best service. My department has, along with colleagues in other agencies and in the community sector, tackled the significant needs of people who live an itinerant lifestyle. Many have drug and alcohol problems, and we have enhanced our capacity to help them become sober and provide them with accommodation while they do so.
It is clear to me from my years of involvement in the community services sector, that a situation in which agencies work together always produces a better result than where they work alone, or even in competition. This is a theme that features prominently in Building Healthier Communities. The framework outlines how we will build healthier and stronger communities by working with all areas of government and with the community and its organisations. It focusses attention on the need to engage the community, experts, consumers, service providers and other key stakeholders, such as other Northern Territory government agencies and the Commonwealth government, in strategies to build healthier communities. This is a shared responsibility. Government is serious about doing its job. In working out how we will work together, my colleague and I have been mindful of what the evidence is telling us: the nature and character of the Territory, and the need to deliver on core services and priorities. I invite the community to continue in partnership with us to tackle disadvantaged.
To facilitate this, I will establish two new advisory councils - a Disability Advisory Council and a Family and Community Services Advisory Council - with membership drawn from across the Territory, the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities, carers and clients. This offers an opportunity for community members and those with specialist expertise and experience to advise me on ways of improving services for doing better.
Despite the positive and real improvements in funding and programs we have already set in motion, we do not intend to rest on our laurels. I have outlined the various pressures that fall on Territory families and indicated how Building Healthier Communities will help to ease those pressures.
This government will hold the line on matters of responsibility. Families and communities need to act responsibly. Territorians cannot walk away from the challenge of building a better life for themselves and their families. People who act violently in families and communities, who abuse our children, who sit passively while waiting for government to fix it all, and leaders who refuse to lead, to speak or hear the truth, will not like Building Healthier Communities. The strategy we have outlined today stands squarely as a challenge to communities and to community leaders. Families, communities and community leaders must accept that they need to stand up and be counted.
Some communities and community leaders are taking up the challenge. Some community leaders have brought out into public gaze the issues of domestic violence, child sexual assault and the scourge of grog and drugs. I cannot see how we can talk about building healthier communities if we do not confront the truth. But sometimes it is our own actions that are the cause of the suffering. Leadership is required and we should demand it of people who hold these roles. I will play my part as minister, but families, communities and community leaders must play their part if we are to succeed.
I have outlined how the government will help and I have indicated where we will hold the line. Building Healthier Communities lays down the challenge and the foundation for sustained improvement over the next five years. This Labor government is distinguished by its ability to understand the social fabric of our society. Our government recognises when others do not that we need to position our decisions so that they fall fairly, helping where we need and holding the line where we have to.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I trust that the Assembly will support the statement by my colleague, the Minister for Health.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I see that the second speaker, the minister for community services has rectified the problem. That is that if she said, ‘I move that the Assembly take note of the statement’, she would be in a bit of trouble because there would be two motions on the table at the same time. There is a convention of course that what is distributed is what is read, but we will leave that aside. What a mess.
We are here looking at two new ministers who have now decided that they have identified all the problems in health in the Northern Territory and with the words of the Labor government that echoes resoundingly in our ears from time to time, ‘We will. I have identified it and we will fix’. In the classic words of the minister for community services, to paraphrase her, ‘We have looked at the issues, we have confronted the challenges, we have seen where the actions lie and we have taken action. We have sacked the member for Nightcliff’. I am glad the member for Nightcliff is in this Chamber this evening because at least she handled the portfolio on her own. At least she could come into this Assembly and bring forward a statement that the opposition could respond in a coherent way.
Now, can anyone imagine a person out there reading the Hansard in that the opposition, which is not equipped with the resources of government, is given two statements. One statement is read. The shadow minister who covers right across all portfolios has to respond to two statements. The shadow minister has to respond to a statement that has not even been read in the Chamber. So anyone who is reading the Hansard transcript of this debate so far will be saying, ‘What is she responding to? What are the issues she is picking up on?’, because I cannot see the transcript where anything has been said’. It is just stupidity.
The other convention that is not adhered to all that well is that it is a debate. So if the Minister for Health makes a number of statements and the shadow minister for Health makes a number of statements, responding to his statement and picking up on others, the next speaker for the government should respond in some way to that. No, what we have is a normal approach of Labor where we pick up the transcript, read it out, no reference whatsoever to what my colleague, the member for Port Darwin raised, certainly from the minister for community services. So far, it has not been much of a debate.
However, we have identified one or two things, and that is that the Minister for Health is excited. He is excited and humbled by his portfolio. Now, paraphrase that with his words when he got the portfolio: which were: ‘I feel sick. I don’t feel excited at all. In fact, this is the first time in my life I have ever had a health problem. And more than that, I think I will resign. I have not talked to the Chief Minister yet, but when I get around to talking to the Chief Minister, I will tell her, but I will tell the press first. I think that within a year, I am out of here. I am out of here within a year because I reckon for the first time in my life, I have a health problem. I have enough health problems as it is without taking on this portfolio’.
Can you imagine then the garbage that we sit here and read about: ‘I am excited about my five year health plan’. Your five year health plan - you intend to see, with a bit of luck, if the polling is right, that you will be out of here within 12 months. If the polling is not right, obviously we will go into it next year, but we know where the member for Stuart’s agenda lies. He is praying and hoping that he gets out of this portfolio, gets out of this parliament as soon as he can. I am sure he will move into some high paid job in the IT sector and well done if he does.
Do not, minister, come in here and tell us about how excited you are and give us a statement that really - and this applies to both the Minister for Health and the new minister for community services - is an insult to the member for Nightcliff. I have not been all that laudatory about the member for Nightcliff in the past, but give the member some credit. The Minister for Health, the member for Stuart, never even made any reference to the member for Nightcliff and her work. Can you imagine being the previous Health Minister, almost three years in the job, taking on an onerous responsibility and driving forward and improving health in the Northern Territory and this new bunch, two of them, the new bunch, B1 and B2, come in here and guess what they have identified? They have identified that we are going to give kids a good start in life: ‘We have identified that we will strengthen families and communities, we will get serious about Aboriginal health’. Member for Nightcliff, where have you been for the last two and a half years? The new team is now going to get serious about Aboriginal health. Let us not talk about all those health ministers in the past because they come and go. More important than health ministers are the public servants who have worked diligently on improving the health profile of the Northern Territory over many years. What do you reckon they feel about the fact that the new team who have such enlightenment have come in here and they are going to get serious about Aboriginal health? This, after going on for three years of a Labor government: ‘We are also going to fill gaps in our health services’. It is just unadulterated garbage.
The statements from both of you, really - I can imagine the public servants - you get the call from the fifth floor that says: ‘Two statements. Knock them out quick’ and they say: ‘God, go to the computer. Rehash, dump all the old statements, put in a few words like “I” and “I am serious about health”, and “I am the new team on the street”’. You read through it and, really, there is nothing. Certainly, in the Minister for Health’s statement, there is nothing apart from: ‘I am humble. I approach this new job with a deal of humility but also with a sense of purpose and excitement’. Hmm. It does not sit too well with the five year framework that he is very excited about.
A classic in here is with regards to specialists and the new system that we now have put in place, if anyone can understand it, in our hospitals is that suddenly, everyone is watching out for the entire hospital network, not just their own patch. Now, is that a directive from the minister? Is that some new insight that we have from the Labor government? All of a sudden, with the new Minister for Health on the street, all of these public servants that are charged with managing hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, a budget that has gone through the roof, I might add, since the Labor government came out, into power, suddenly we have a whole new system in place whereas before no one was looking at the system. No one was looking across the hospitals of the Northern Territory to see if they were coordinated, to see that there were specialists being applied and relocated at the right time, that when there was a lack of doctors or anaesthetists in one area of the Northern Territory that adequate personnel were provided. No. Suddenly we have had this enlightenment with two ministers who have some wonderful insight that under their watch, everyone is now looking out for the entire hospital system.
It does not say a lot for one Dr Len Notaras. He was certainly charged with that responsibility for as far back as I can recall, including the time that I was Health Minister, so I do not know how he feels about the fact that he is being described here as being totally negligent for not being concerned about the entire health system in the Northern Territory.
The one statement that is true in these two statements is: ‘Words are cheap’. Words are really cheap when you come in and rattle off platitudes but, on interrogation, really, there is nothing of any substance in these two statements. That is the fact of it. If you want to look at areas, let us look at oral health. The minister said:
What does that mean? ‘… a redistribution … to ensure an equitable level of oral health service across the Territory’. A redistribution of what? Anyone knows that the oral health services of the Northern Territory, as in many other areas, are strained to the extreme, but within that strain they have, over time, delivered a very high quality of service. What we would like to know is just exactly what you mean by, ‘… an equitable level of oral health service across the Territory’. Do you know what the level is now? The level now, in the Northern Territory, is 94%; it exceeds Australian benchmarks. One of the things that the Northern Territory can hold its head proudly across Australia, is the quality of oral health care in the Northern Territory. A quick layman’s answer to that one too, if you do not believe me, is ask any young kid in the Northern Territory to open their mouth. You will find that very few of the current generation have the dental problems that have been the problems of previous generations. One of the reasons it has been so successful is because of the screening services that we have in place in the Northern Territory, screening services that are available for every primary school in the Northern Territory, except in some remote areas, and I will get to that in a second.
Dr Toyne: Oh right, we have finally mentioned the magic word!
Mr BURKE: Well, we will talk about remote areas of the Northern Territory.
Dr Toyne: Two speakers and it is the first time it has been mentioned.
Mr BURKE: In fact, one remote area has its own hospital! Screening services that deliver this, more than anything else, they have children in the Northern Territory grow up without a fear of going to the dentist, they have children knowing, within the school environment, the school environment where they are taught, that it is a normal part of the school environment that they are in. They do not have to go to another school. They go along with their other classmates, supervised by their teachers under programs that are organised by Oral Health. What we know is happening, and I put this out in a press release and it was picked up by the paper and referred to by my colleague, is that the government is looking to change the system for a more equitable service delivery method.
The equitable service delivery methodology that you are looking at, we well know is the one that has been pinched from the ACT, which groups clientele to go from feeder schools into one central base location, and is a methodology that failed in the ACT. It had about 54% participation rate when it was introduced, and only now is getting back to 74% participation rate. That is the sort of system that the Labor government is looking at, and to try to cloud that system into some sort of new equitable method of service delivery is simply wrong. I do not get this information off the top of my head. I get it from people who work within the public service, who are very concerned about the way government is looking to change the oral health system we have in place in the Northern Territory. They talk about it, and the reason they talk about it is that they know, because they are professionals that work in the area, that the system that you are looking at could not possibly meet the expectations or levels that have been achieved in the past. We look forward to seeing what you bring forward.
I seek leave to table, for the benefit of honourable members, the information that has been provided to me, that there will be, on the government’s preferred option, the best part of 37 clinics closed in primary schools, particularly in the Darwin area, all feeding into eight base clinics. For example, for places like, in your area, Mr Deputy Speaker, schools such as Litchfield Christian, Bees Creek, St Francis, Girraween, Berry Springs, Adelaide River and Batchelor all feed into Humpty Doo Primary School as the one base clinic, where the responsibility is placed on parents who have to make sure that their kids get to the base clinic. For those parents whom the minister for community services said are not pulling their weight, guess who loses? The kid. The kid loses because the parents do not have the interest to meet those appointments, and that is why the oral practitioners are so keen on the current system being in place. The kids who are worst off, the most vulnerable kids, are the ones who miss out under this new streamlined type system. I table the government’s preferred option for the benefit of honourable members.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: If the government wants to say they will not do it, the current system will remain in place, fine! Just give us the detail but do not say you are going to put in place a new, equitable system that you will not give us any detail for.
Remote areas of the Northern Territory - Gove is a classic. The Treasurer of the Northern Territory should be aware of what is happening in Gove. There is no oral therapist in Gove. It is given over to a private practitioner. Guess how much that private practitioner is costing the Northern Territory government at the moment, Madam Speaker? You should know this, Treasurer - $66 000 every three months, minimum. You have to ask yourself this question: whenever this dentist does a service for government-funded clientele such as primary school kids and others on pension cards, all of that service is provided at government expense, all of the equipment is provided at government expense, all the material is provided at government expense. The only thing that the dentists have to pay is for the costs of their labour. Why then is it costing $66 000 every three months, minimum, for a private practitioner in Gove when the government cannot have their own therapist do the job, or cannot put in place a government practitioner? For the benefit of honourable members, I seek leave to table the information on one three-month period of costings in Gove.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: Treasurer, it is scandalous. It is scandalous and you must know. If you are not aware of the situation, if your new Minister for Health is not aware of the situation that is happening in Gove you should be. Public servants are. Public servants are scandalised that you are wasting money on these sorts of programs when there is money needed desperately right across the health system - particularly more money needed targeted properly and efficiently in our oral health services. You are wasting their money, and the public servants have to pay this out on that sort of inefficient practice that is happening in Gove.
Suddenly, everyone is watching to make sure our hospitals are doing well. I tell you who is watching. I received a letter from a constituent today, who asked not to be named publicly. I will not name him or her publicly. However, I am quite happy to tell the Minister for Health on the side if he likes. I will tell you what it says:
I think he means $21m:
This is the result of a $40m extension that my government put in at RDH with one of the prime purposes of integrating those two hospitals. The Minister for Health stands up here and tells us what a great job he is doing with hospitals because, suddenly, everyone is watching out across the whole system. Everyone has seen that the system is working properly under his charge. Well, guess what? There is one resident who can tell you if you wander out there and check your waiting wards, you cannot even get admitted to the hospital or the private hospital as well – 28 patients stacked up in a brand new A&E. It is a disgrace; it is scandalous. That is the situation that we have at the moment.
Disabilities is a good one. The disability statement from the minister for community services goes on to say:
Mr Henderson: Your previous minister would not even take a public meeting; would not even talk to them. He ran 100 miles from them. He would not even talk to them.
Mr BURKE: The ACOSS group is a mob that is sympathetic to your government. Absolutely.
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr BURKE: ACOSS, because they were not treated as well as they would have liked under my government, have been treated admirably under your government, so you say, would be the sort of group that you would think would be a reticent to criticise government. So, minister for community services, when you talk about the disability sector and all the things you are doing within the disability sector, read this:
It goes on:
So there is the ACOSS mob. Just imagine if they were not sympathetic to you. Just imagine if they were not friendly what they would be saying. And they cannot even hold back on an issue of disability even though they know that they are beholden to government for funding otherwise they will get the funding cut off. They are being very subdued, very subdued in what they are saying. I seek leave to table the letter too, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: Let us quickly talk about transparent, open and accountable health services.
Ms CARTER: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE: This is the health system that we have in place in the Northern Territory. This is the government that introduced freedom of information legislation. This is the government that brings out glossy budget books and says: ‘Aren’t we wonderful. We are spending all this money in health. We have a new estimates process. You can interrogate the budget, you can find out everything that is going on’. Guess what? The reality is a million miles away from that. If you look at the information that has been provided over FOI – there is the index. These are line items on budget outputs that have been scrubbed out.
I will table these, Madam Speaker, as I go along. How would any opposition, which has a responsibility to act on behalf of the taxpayer to interrogate the government, possibly interrogate a budget when the information you get out of this government is what we received here? The capital works program …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Well, the member for Nhulunbuy has a chuckle.
Mr Stirling: When did you bring FOI in?
Mr BURKE: Well, what we would not do is bring in FOI, which is an absolute disgrace and that is that you cannot get - the reality is, you cannot get information out of this government. You can parrot FOI until the cows come home. At the end of the day, you have to get information. Now, if you were asked, member for Nhulunbuy or member for Wanguri, this question in the budgets estimates process under the old system, tell me, would you have a reasonable answer? Can you provide details of the capital works program for 2002-03, 2003-04? See where 2003-04 is? Blanked out, completely. A capital works program which should be the government accounting back to Territorians as to how they are spending their capital works money, blanked out. You cannot even get one iota of information on what is the real spending of the capital works program out of this government in the 2003-04 budget.
Non-admitted patient services: you come in here with your statement and tell us what a great job you are doing in Health and non-admitted patient services, explanation of variation of the 2002-03 estimate and 2003-04 budget. These are outputs of the budget. These are the reasons you account to the taxpayer. This is what you have to do. How can any opposition possibly interrogate a budget that has total line items removed? In this particular example, the missing figure is on non-admitted patient services, explanations of variations in the budget. The missing figure on that line item is $332 000 which is 10% of the budget. Zip – no information to the opposition that gives them any idea as to why or how that variation occurred.
The missing figure for the variation of the estimate of admitted patient services - this is the streamlined health system where everyone is suddenly watching out for each other - for admitted patient services, the variation in the budget has a missing figure of $6.817m. $6.817m that you cannot burrow down - even under FOI – you cannot get out of the estimates process, you cannot burrow down under FOI. You give global figures in your budget papers and when one tries to interrogate and find out what is the real figure with the way money is moving around, where is the admitted patient services systems blowing out, you cannot get any information.
Air evacuations - here is a classic. Air evacuations, a high cost item in the Northern Territory. The question is: for 2002-03, detail expenditure for air evacuations of patients from remote locations to regional hospitals for treatment. Now, that is a reasonable question that the taxpayer would want to know. Is the cost of air evacuations going up or down and why? Blank! The whole lot. Blank! For 2003-04, you are not game to tell anyone what your costs for air evacuations for remote locations is going to be.
This is FOI under the Labor government. This is the health system under the Labor government. What it consists of is this: you come in here with this sort of parroted garbage, rehashed, cut and pasted, wide ranging statements about ‘Aren’t I wonderful? I am now the Health Minister. I am now the community minister. I am excited. I am going to fix Aboriginal health. The previous minister is a dud. We are going to have new reviews, new plans, new strategies’. But when you say: ‘Where is the detail? How much is air evac costing you?’, you get a big blank. It is a scandal when it comes to just the issues that I have raised alone.
I can go on, Madam Speaker. Support for senior Territorians and pensioner concessions output - $332 000 missing from that output variation. No way of knowing why it is missing, whether it has changed up or down, whether the budget figures are correct or not.
Alcohol and other drugs: the minister for community services said she is really interested in alcohol and other drugs, that she is really going to do a lot in that area. The budget shows, for 2002-03 to 2003-04, an increase of $23 000 for Alcohol and Other Drugs output. When you find out what the real situation is, you find out that there is $294 000 of deductions that have not been explained. So you cannot find out whether or not the increase has been $23 000, or whether or not it is $23 000 over what was spent the year before, or whether there has actually been about a $270 000 decrease because of a blow-out the year before. This is scandalous.
Support for senior Territorians is same story: as I said, about $332 000 with missing figures all over the place.
This is the real story about health in the Northern Territory. We have two new ministers. You said the previous Minister for Health and Community Services is a dud, she tried hard, we are now all enlightened, excited, we are going to fix the health system. We are going to have a whole heap of reviews, we are going to have advisory committees. Well, I will give member for Nightcliff credit: she was not all that forthcoming with information …
Mr Dunham: Or smart.
Mr BURKE: No, I would not go that far. I think she is a smart lady.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: I would not go that far. I think she is a nice lady. In fact, I am impressed, Madam Speaker. There is a woman, and I can relate to her in some ways, she is still on the front row. Member for Casuarina, you are not doing too well. I thought the front bench is the front bench. If you are a minister, you sit on the front bench, and you have not quite made it yet. You have been demoted, but you have not made it to the front bench yet. I would be a bit worried if I were you. The member for Nightcliff is sitting there poised: ‘all I have to do is keep my nose clean and I have a good chance here’. In fact, I can tell you, member for Nightcliff, we are going to give you a hand. In the space of these sittings, we are going to give you a hand. You just stay in the seat, you never know. Things could happen and it might just improve.
Madam Speaker, I will not say any more.
Dr Burns: You know all about that, don’t you?
Mr BURKE: Yes, and I can take it in my stride. I can take it in my stride. I tell you what: you will never get to the heights I ever reached. So sit with that one! Keep that one! You go up and you go down, but you will never even get up three rungs of the ladder. Go and talk to Latham. Talk about how you climb the ladder! Latham might give you a few little insights as to how to climb the ladder. The member for Casuarina knows how to go down the ladder; you have to figure out how to climb it.
Madam Speaker, I hope that the government in future will produce a statement that has some real information. If we are going to deal with two statements at one time, let us get ourselves organised so we have some substance.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that debate be adjourned.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Dunham: Oh, you gag it because you are in trouble! What is wrong with you? Can’t you take debate? You gag it because you are in trouble!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Dunham: You are so weak! That is the most gutless thing I have ever seen. You brought it on as an issue.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! It seems as though the agreement that is occurring between the Whips is not being passed on to other members …
Mr Baldwin: That’s rubbish! Two speakers!
Madam SPEAKER: … but that was my understanding when we spoke earlier.
The question is that debate be adjourned. I think the ayes have it.
Mr Dunham: No, division!
Mr Elferink: Division, Madam Speaker.
Mr Bonson: Settle down.
Mr Dunham: Well, you are gagging debate.
Dr Burns: You are humiliating your own Whip.
Mr Dunham: You brought these on as issues and you do not want to hear.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, thank you.
Mr Dunham: Oh mate, I will humiliate you soon.
Dr Burns: You would be going to do that, old fellow.
Mr Dunham: Oh, I do not pinch people’s words, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: A division was called. Ring the bells.
Mr Dunham: You stand here as a convicted plagiarist, and you give us that shit!
Dr Burns: Oh, come on. You are full of hate. Get a life!
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Drysdale.
Mr Dunham: I am sorry I pinch people’s words. We have had sorry from the Chief Minister – oh, she’s not here!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr STIRLING: I don’t think we need that language from that grub over there. He should withdraw it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, thank you! Resume your seats. You know the rules as well as I do. You will not sit there shouting at each other or you will be sent out of the Chamber. I am getting a little bit tired of it. We have a division called. You know what it is about. Just sit there.
Mr Baldwin: Outrageous behaviour on government’s behalf. Bring on an important statement and you cannot debate it. Gagged in two important statements: the railway, the biggest project in the Northern Territory, and health, the biggest issue in the Northern Territory and we get gagged.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, enough!
Mr Baldwin: Absolute rot.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Dunham: It is supposed to be a House of debate, mate.
Mr Baldwin: Who is running the show over there? Which one of you is running it? Where is your Chief Minister?
Mr Dunham: Are you on the run, Hendo? You’re on the run, aren’t you?
Mr Henderson: Do you want your MPI or not?
Mr Dunham: No. You brought the statements on. We just want to talk about them. Oh, the Chief’s back! This will be good.
Ms Carter: The agreement was three. Three each side.
Mr Baldwin: This is an outrageous, appalling performance by a government. How many statements are we going to get …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly! Enough!
Mr Baldwin: Madam Speaker, this should be referred to Standing Orders, this whole thing. This is absolute abuse of parliament. That is what it is.
Mr Stirling: The member for Drysdale should stay away from the bar while the House is sitting.
Mr Dunham: I am happy to talk, mate. So far I have been gagged twice.
Mr Kiely: I think we ought to alcohol test you.
Mr Dunham: Pardon, Mr Kiely?
Mr Kiely: You heard me.
Mr Dunham: What? Alcohol?
Mr Kiely: I think there is no room for alcohol in this Chamber, Mr Dunham.
Mr Dunham: Really?
Dr Burns: Don’t listen to him.
Mr Dunham: You bring the statements on, and we want to talk to them, okay? It is a simple thing. You are supposed to bring them on because they are important.
Mr Kiely: Do not be a fool. You are a foolish individual. Foolish.
Mr Dunham: They are not bullshit, are they? Oh, that is interesting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, enough!
Mr Dunham: I am getting frustrated, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: I would ask that that be withdrawn, Madam Speaker. It is the second time he has used it.
Mr Baldwin: What did he say?
Mr Bonson: Bullshit. He said the word ‘bullshit’.
Dr Lim: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. Member for Drysdale, you should withdraw it.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: I just asked you to withdraw it.
Mr DUNHAM: Could I explain? I did use the word ‘bullshit’ because I assumed it was said by the member for Sanderson and I was asking if that is what he said. It is the first time I said it.
Madam SPEAKER: I have asked you to withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw it. I believe it to be unparliamentary.
Mr Baldwin: Now, member for Sanderson, you withdraw yours.
Mr Bonson: He never said anything. He did not say it. You are putting words into his mouth.
Mr Dunham: Did you say it?
Mr Kiely: No, no, no. Don’t be so ridiculous.
Mr Dunham: Who said it? Was it you, Matthew? Somebody said it.
Madam SPEAKER: I am not going to tolerate this any longer.
Dr Lim: Madam Speaker, may I…
Madam SPEAKER: Last warning for you, member for Drysdale.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdrew, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, we are in a middle of a division.
Dr Lim: I understand that. I was just trying to save some time.
Madam SPEAKER: Lock the doors. The question is that debate be adjourned.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Bonson Mr Burke
Dr Burns Ms Carney
Mr Henderson Ms Carter
Mr Kiely Mr Dunham
Ms Lawrie Mr Elferink
Mr McAdam Dr Lim
Ms Martin Mr Maley
Ms Scrymgour Mrs Miller
Mr Stirling Mr Mills
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARTER: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to clarify, the agreement with the Whips was three speakers each on this item.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I suggest that …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order! It is not my agreement. As a member of parliament, I reserve the right to speak.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me! I order the member for Drysdale to withdraw from the Chamber under Standing Order 240A …
Mr Dunham: Yes, no problem.
Madam SPEAKER: … for one hour!
Mr Dunham: There is very little opportunity to speak in this place, anyway.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, resume your seat! You do not walk out of this House speaking! I name the member for Drysdale.
Mr Dunham: I thought you ordered me out, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Do not start back-answering as you walk out. Leader of Government Business, I have named the member for Drysdale. I will not tolerate any more of this.
Mr Baldwin: Do you know what to do, Leader of Government Business?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale will absent himself for 24 hours.
Mr Dunham: 24 hours?
Madam SPEAKER: No, you need to move a motion.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Drysdale absent himself from this House for a period of 24 hours.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Those of the opinion say ‘aye’.
Mr Elferink: No! Madam Speaker, I was on my feet! I was speaking to the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: You were not acknowledged.
Mr Elferink: I was speaking to the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: You were not acknowledged. I am getting a bit fed up!
Mr Elferink: I have a right to be heard in this Chamber, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr Elferink: I have a right to be heard in this Chamber in accordance with …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr Stirling: If you want to challenge the Speaker, you can go, too.
Mr Elferink: I am quite happy to go because I am not getting heard!
Madam SPEAKER: Okay!
Mr Elferink: I am not getting heard. Nothing is getting heard in this Chamber . This is outrageous!
Madam SPEAKER: This is outrageous and you are contributing to it. The reason I named the member for Drysdale is that when I ordered him to leave the Chamber, he turned around and gave a mouthful of lip back to me. I will do the same to you! I will not tolerate this disrespect you are showing. You can rant and rave all you like, but let us get some order back into this Chamber. I suggest the opposition realise that they are doing themselves no good by putting on these performances. You know the rules, and that is it.
Mr Dunham: We are totally gagged!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, leave the Chamber.
Mr DUNHAM: Has the vote been put, Madam Speaker? I believe the question is still before the Chair.
Mr Baldwin: Yes, it is.
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon, it is. It is a procedural motion so there is no debate.
Motion agreed to.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I am seeking guidance here from yourself and the Clerk. It appears to me, observing the behaviour in this Chamber, that the government has persistently and consistently flaunted all convention in this Chamber, where debate should be occurring after a minister comes in, two ministers, three ministers comes in with debate and …
Mr Stirling: What is he talking to?
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Dr LIM: … the opposition is not allowed …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, what is your point of order?
Dr LIM: Well, I believe there should be time put aside in this Chamber to debate this through properly, to decide how we are going to conduct business in this Chamber. At the moment, business is not being conducted in this Chamber in accordance with the sentiment that is here in parliament. It is not.
Madam SPEAKER: All right. Resume your seat.
Mr Stirling: If I can clarify things …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me! Let me say it is not the first time that statements have been adjourned in this House.
Mr Baldwin: By this government.
Madam SPEAKER: It has happened before.
Mr Baldwin: By this government.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I do not think you should make that statement so broadly.
Dr Lim: Well, it is true.
Ms Martin: By the CLP in government, as well.
Madam SPEAKER: This House has been sitting since 1978.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): I just wanted to make the point, Madam Speaker, in relation to some of the comments the member for Greatorex was making. There are deals made between both sides of the House to facilitate …
Mr Baldwin: But you did not uphold it.
Mr STIRLING: … the sensible operation of the parliamentary Notice Paper and Business of the Day. On two occasions today, up to tonight, the deal was broken by the opposition after agreement was struck by the Whips so that the government understood how many speakers were on each issue. When you get to questions of censure, we did not invent two and two. It has been the case …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Wait until he is finished.
Mr STIRLING: It has been the case for 13 years I have been in this Chamber. I think on one or two exceptions it ever went to three and three. The deal was two and two. That was broken. A similar deal was broken by members opposite, despite the agreement with the …
Mr Baldwin: This is rubbish!
Mr STIRLING: They do not have the discipline. If they do not have the discipline to work it out among themselves and listen to their Whip and understand what the deal is, then it is on their own head.
Mr Baldwin: You are a liar!
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your Chair. Member for Daly.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the member, we had our Whip, of her own volition, stand up and say to you - with respect to you - that the deal was three on three. We have only had two speakers. The member for Brennan was our second speaker. For the member for Nhulunbuy to stand up and say that we do this all the time, is absolute rubbish. There is a problem here and it is becoming the norm that these ministerial statements that are so important to this House, that give us the chance to debate very important issues - the railway being one and health being the other – that, Madam Speaker, I will ask you to take on board to talk to both the Opposition Leader and the Chief Minister and the Whip and the Leader of Government Business to sort this issue out. It is becoming the norm from this government, and the member for Nhulunbuy has just called our Whip a liar.
Madam SPEAKER: No, he did not.
Mr Baldwin: Yes, he did.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go any further let me just say I sit here and I am advised by the Whips what is going on. If anyone stands and adjourns a debate, that is part of the standing orders. You can do that. I suggest both sides get their act together and start getting agreement on how many speakers you are going to have. Simple as that.
Mr Baldwin: It is an absolute joke, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, if it is a joke then perhaps you need to get your act together.
Mr Baldwin: And perhaps we need to make an issue out of it.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, you are.
Mr Baldwin: That is the point. Yes, we are.
Madam SPEAKER: You are. And I just want to make a point here also to the member for Macdonnell. I will not tolerate any further the way you are speaking to me. That is your last warning.
Mr Baldwin: He stood to be heard, he has been not recognised twice.
Madam SPEAKER: You do not stand up and scream like that. Thank you..
Mr Baldwin: He has not been recognised twice.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, I am speaking. The member for Macdonnell seems to think he knows all about the procedures. When a motion like that is put, there is no debate. But you continued to scream and yell. Now let’s get some sort of commonsense back in this Chamber.
Mr Baldwin: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: No. Clerk, have we put the motion? We have. We are in division. I will announce the division. There was no division. Well, why did we lock the doors?
Mr Baldwin: We called a division.
Madam SPEAKER: We shall go on with the next - open the doors. Let the member for Nelson in. We are going on to the next item of business which is the MPI.
Mr Baldwin: Madam Speaker, just to clarify. Did we have the division because it was called. The doors were closed.
Madam SPEAKER: I was advised by the Clerk that there was not.
Mr Henderson: And then you called the numbers on the motion.
Mr Baldwin: We called a division. Division means ringing the bells.
Madam SPEAKER: I announced the result of it. I said there were 12 ayes and 10 noes.
Mr Baldwin: A division is ringing the bells and counting the numbers.
Mr Henderson: We have done that.
Madam SPEAKER: That is what we just did.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition which I will now read. In accordance with Standing Order 94 I intend to raise today as a matter of public importance that - Noting:
Leader of the Opposition, is the proposed discussion supported.
Mr MILLS: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, no it is not.
Mr MILLS: Yes, yes it is supported.
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is still not supported. You need five members to support it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I call on the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, two-and-a-half years ago this week Territorians woke up on a Sunday morning to the news that they had elected a Labor government for the first time in our history. It was as much a shock to them and the CLP as it was to the Labor Party. Labor never believed that they would win. They were not prepared to win and they were not ready to govern. Territorians have suffered ever since. We have suffered a plethora of inquiries, a rash of reviews, a crisis load of consultancies and dozens upon dozens of discussion papers as this government has desperately tried to work out some policies and frantically tried to work out how to govern.
In the past week, we have witnessed two classic examples of the way this Labor government operates. First, there was this pool fencing fiasco. It was a policy they discovered amidst all the inquiries, the inquisitions, strategic plans of their first 12 months in government, so they charged ahead and legislated. A courageous move, as the government’s wise old man, Bob Collins, described it at the weekend. Unfortunately for Bob, the government has now lost the courage, just as it has lost the votes of many Territorians for its impulsive interference with the lifestyles and the backyards of Territorians. With more I-was-wrongs and I’m-sorrys than any prime minister, premier, or chief minister has ever uttered in one announcement, the Chief Minister last Thursday ditched the policy, and the cost is some $20m of taxpayers’ money. The lesson for inexperienced Labor is: do not grab at any issue; do not rush through laws; and do not interfere with the freedoms of Territorians.
Have they learnt the lesson, Madam Speaker? It would appear not, as the Chief Minister is now planning to rush through the new version in this parliament, and she said in her media release that the new laws would be implemented in March.
The second classic example is the issue of superannuation for MLAs. This was a policy that they had before the 2001 election. The Chief Minister is on the record saying she would fix this up when she won government, but she made those comments when the idea that she would win government in 2001 had just not entered her head. It was a promise, like so many of the others the Labor Party took to the election, that never in their wildest dreams did they believe they would actually have to implement.
Having won government, the Chief Minister decided she had better pay lip service to the promise, and ordered an inquiry in May 2002. That is almost two years ago. The inquiry was conducted by the respected former Under Treasurer and was completed in September 2002, 18 months ago. Nothing more was heard about it until the Chief Minister was hit last week with both barrels from Canberra. First, her national leader said he would do something about federal MPs superannuation if he was ever elected - obviously a standard Labor promise when in opposition. Then the Prime Minister took up the challenge and said: ‘It is done. We will fix it now’. Reeling from this double barreled attack, the Chief Minister initially said on Friday morning that the government was still working on its reforms and would not be rushed; legislation would be introduced later in the year. Within a few hours on Friday, she showed her back flip on pool fencing …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr MILLS: … the day before was not the exception, but was becoming the norm. By late Friday afternoon, she had issued a media release announcing that she would be bringing her reforms to MPs superannuation to this session of the Legislative Assembly.
This is a classic example because it shows Labor promised policies they did not know how to introduce and when they found out, they procrastinated until events beyond their control forced their hand. They are but two examples of what Territorians have had to suffer under this government.
Mr Stirling: There is nothing about this in the MPI.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I could go on with a litany of complaint about the Chief Minister and her government. We could talk about the loss of jobs they have presided over - more than 3000 between May 2002 and January 2004, 3000 Territorian jobs. In fact, there are fewer Territorians with full-time jobs in January 2004 than there were when the Labor government won government in August 2001. Labor went to the election with a job plan and then discovered a new one after two years in government. Some plan! A plan that makes jobs disappear. The Treasurer admits in his mid-year report that he expects employment growth this year to be only half of what he was predicting in the budget.
We could talk about the general state of the economy, with forecast growth for this financial year downgraded by the Treasurer and Treasury to 1.6%, less than half of what he was predicting in his budgets seven months earlier. We could talk about the hurt local business is suffering, or the frightening number of vacant shops, restaurants and buildings that provide clear evidence that things are not going well.
We could talk about how tourism, one of our major industries, has been tossed from one incompetent minister to another. There have been four Labor tourism ministers so far, and remember, Labor has only been in power for two and a half years. The tactic is obvious. Any new minister can claim they are consulting and getting on top of their portfolio to gain a little time before criticism of lack of action takes hold. Then just as the industry is ready to denounce the minister’s efforts, he disappears and a new one is appointed to consult and to get on top of the portfolio. It is a slick card trick and our crucial tourism industry is the one being cheated here.
ABS figures released last week showed that in 2003 the number of overseas visitors who spent most of the time in the Territory declined by 20.6% in 2002. No industry can be expected to suffer such a downturn. This government finally recognised the dire straights which have befallen this vital industry, but they are to be condemned for not acting sooner. Such contemptuous disregard for one of the biggest employers and drivers of our economy will never happen under a CLP government. I could go on but it is just too depressing. We are stuck with this lot and all we can hope is that the damage that they do is not irreparable.
What I will speak about today is some of the things I would do: the action we would take to get the Territory moving again; the plans and the policies we will pursue to develop the Territory. Let me stress that these are only some of the initiatives that the CLP will be putting before Territorians. In coming weeks and months, we will be outlining our plans for the Territory across all areas.
We believe in a Territory that acts, not reacts to whatever is being done down south. We believe in a Territory that gets on with the job; that is innovative, exciting and constantly developing. We do not want a Territory that is a mirror image of Labor states elsewhere. We want the Territory to continue to be a special place, a different place and a freer place. It is a place that develops its own way, whether it is the tropical cities and towns of the north or the desert cities and the communities of the Centre. We have the opportunity to make the Territory an even greater place to live, and we will pursue that, guided only by the wishes of Territorians.
We will use the resources and the revenues the Territory has received to achieve this. We will use the ever growing revenue stream from the GST, and it is ever growing. In 2001-02, this Labor government received an extra $64m on what the CLP government received in 2000-01. In 2002-03, they received an extra $215m from the GST compared to what they received the previous year. This financial year they are getting an extra $118m. Since Labor took office, the GST revenue alone has soared from $1.2bn to more than $1.6bn. That is, this year this government will have $400m more than the CLP government did in 2000-01.
Madam Speaker, a CLP government will use this ever growing stream of funds, not to engage in more social engineering, more government interference in Territorians’ lifestyle, but rather ease the burden of government on Territorians. The GST revenue should not be seen as a windfall so that government can indulge in some of their own policy fantasies, their social experiments, their pet projects, or their touting for votes. It should be seen for what it is, a new tax system that was meant to replace many of the insidious taxes on jobs, business and industry, and the earnings of ordinary Territorians.
We will use the GST revenue stream to both cut the payroll tax rate and increase the threshold before it impacts on small and medium businesses. It is a tax that forces these businesses to limit their work force and screw down hard on any wage increases for their employees. No tax should be a disincentive for hiring people. No tax should be a part of the bargaining that prevents fair wages for Territorians. An employer who wishes to hire more Territorians or pay the staff more in wages should be encouraged, not threatened by a tax that increases the cost of each new job or any wage increase. Just as bracket creep is putting more people into high income tax scales, so too with the threshold for payroll tax. It must be closely monitored so that those drivers of the economy, the small and medium enterprises, are not hit by payroll tax just because of inflation.
We will change the payroll tax system and change it fundamentally. The first stage will be to make the NT payroll tax regime the most attractive nationally, and this will be achieved in the first term of a CLP government. The ultimate aim will be to abolish this tax on jobs. In 2002-03, payroll raised $88.9m, and this financial year it is expected to bring in $96m. The tax can and will be phased out as GST revenues rise. In the meantime, we will make it crystal clear in legislation just who is an employee and who is not - a definition that constantly changes and is open to different interpretations leads to that most abhorrent of taxes, retrospective taxation. It has the power to devastate companies - even to seeing them closing down and Territorians losing their jobs. We do not condone anyone indulging in rorts, of course, to avoid paying legitimately imposed taxes, nor do we condone trolling through a company’s books to collect taxes from years ago just because the latest interpretation of ‘employee’ may make them liable.
We will abolish the HIH levy. Territory companies should not have to pay for the failure, the mismanagement of some southern insurance company. If it is a burden that has to be met, then the pain should spread as wide and as possible to come out of general government revenue. We will also examine other areas of taxation, particularly those instances where Territorians have to pay a tax on a tax, such as property where the Territory imposes its stamp duty on the grossed-up value of the property which includes the GST. It is unfair that Territorians have to pay an extra 10% in stamp duty because the price of the property is deflated by the 10% GST. The stamp duty should be imposed on the real value, not the tax inflated worth.
There is a real point of difference also between the CLP and the ALP when it comes to law and order issues. Underlying the ALP’s approach to this issue is a belief that those who commit crimes should not go to gaol. The CLP does not share that belief. In fact, it rejects it.
Mr Stirling: Where is that in the MPI?
Mr MILLS: The CLP does not support what is meant by the phrase: ‘Do the crime, do the time’. I confirm today that the CLP agrees and will announce policies over the next six months to demonstrate our resolve to send offenders to gaol. Put simply, the community wants it, victims of crime expect it, and offenders deserve it.
A particular focus for a future CLP government will be the unveiling of juvenile correction models. Violent crime has increased in the Territory under Labor and its own figures confirm this. No doubt, this is one reason for people leaving the Territory in droves ...
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I missed the point earlier, and perhaps it was not so important, however, at the commencement of the matter of public importance, the Leader of the Opposition spent a considerable time on superannuation which is just simply not mentioned here. Now he is on to imprisonment rates, law and order, crime – any of those issues are simply not mentioned in the letter to you. If he has put it in writing to you, that is the material that he is expected to cover, and nothing else.
Madam SPEAKER: You should confine your remarks to your matter of public importance unless you can tie those particular subjects into what you are saying.
Mr MILLS: It will follow through. It will.
We are prepared to bet on the Territory’s future and provide a government that will do all it can to facilitate a better and brighter future for Territorians and Territory families. We will say to the Territory’s parents: ‘We believe in you. We respect your right and responsibility to bring up your children free from busybody interference from government or bureaucracy’. We will say that it is up to Territorians to decide what is politically correct, not the ideologues or the social engineers. We will put in a safety net to help parents who are not coping, who are having trouble looking after our most precious resource: our children. We will offer counselling and help to the schools from the Health and Community Services Department. In return we will expect every child to be given the chance for a full education; the chance to reach their full potential.
It is, therefore, logical to say that parents are responsible for their children’s health, welfare and education, that we pursue the ways to ensure that all parents exercise that responsibility. There are limited laws now to fine parents if their children do not attend school, but we must look beyond this to issues such as children roaming our streets at night, with no respect for others, for the law or for society. The first step is to offer help to parents to rectify this situation. The second step is to ensure that those who do not, and will not, are given some strong incentive to perform their parental duties. It must be an offer that they cannot refuse and be backed by court orders if necessary.
Governments cannot, and should not, usurp the role of parents, but rather offer as much help and support as parents need. We have to offer the back-up services, the opportunities that parents and children can use to further their development. One such example, I believe, is a cadets NT program. The aim of a cadets NT program is to promote team building, leadership, self-reliance, personal development, citizenship and volunteerism amongst young Territorians. The program will provide young Territorians with practical life skills that will assist them to progress to further education or to enter the work force. Funding should be a set access from the Commonwealth Cadets and High Schools program, with the Territory government providing start up and per capita cash subsidies.
Funding would be provided to participating schools which would operate and manage the cadet unit. Training programs would have two strands: one provided by the school, and the other by existing and accredited service providers, such as the scouts, St John Ambulance, Red Cross, Junior Police Rangers, Army, Navy, Air Force and emergency services. These providers would be responsible to cover components related to skills acquisition, leadership, community services, initiative and problem solving and team work.
More than a quarter of Territorians are Aboriginal and most live in these smaller communities. We believe that the days of ‘sit down money’ must end. The dependence on welfare has done more harm than good. People must be given back their dignity, not paid off in the hope that the problems will, if not go away, then at least be silenced. In the meantime, ways must be found to ensure that those monies are used to the benefit of all recipients. Ways can be worked out to ensure that the money given to itinerants to allow them to pay their fares back to communities is repaid. Why then cannot ways be worked out to ensure that various payments made to families and individuals are not wasted on grog or ganja or kava, but rather used to improve the health and the welfare of families and individuals?
I am committed to finding ways to achieving this so that families benefit from these payments and not suffer any further. However, that is only a temporary solution. We must give communities the opportunities to get off welfare and pursue their own economic development. It must not be in a paternalistic way that is now fashionable of telling them what to do, but rather government’s role is to assist them to do what they want to do. Ways must be found to unlock the economic potential of almost 50% of the land controlled by land trusts. Ways must be found to let the traditional owners and the residents of these lands improve their economic lot. It does not have to be factories or industry or even the cash economy. It does not have to fit with the western economic model. There were thriving micro-economies before and there can be again. Government’s role will be to help, not dictate.
Madam Speaker, I now turn to another group of very important Territorians, our public servants. Let me assure them first that I have no wish to create more turmoil within the public service by conducting a wholesale review of the structure.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order! Madam Speaker, Standing Order 94 is very clear in regards to the items that can be debated under matter of public importance. I will read that: ‘A written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed …,’ and Madam Speaker determines whether it is in the competence of the Assembly. We have nothing in the letter to you, Madam Speaker, that talks about superannuation, law and order, truant kids, parental responsibility, ‘sit down money’, the list goes on.
We are happy to debate these issues, and maybe you can refer the Leader of the Opposition to what is allowed under the provisions of this standing order. Really, the issues that he is raising here, he did not raise in the letter. They are substantive issues, they deserve debate, there is General Business day. Madam Speaker, I seek your ruling on the content of the debate of the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: I have already spoken to you, Leader of the Opposition. You need to keep to the subject of your matter of public importance.
Mr MILLS: I would like to speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr Stirling: No, no, no, it is a standing order!
Mr Baldwin: No, just listen.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member, excuse me! You are not the Speaker. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, in raising a matter of public importance, we note issues of fundamental concern to Territorians. If you will note the letter, it says it is an urgent matter of public importance so that a new approach must be found and new policies implemented. That is precisely what I am doing in response to the concerns of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please continue your remarks and confine them to your matter of public importance.
Mr MILLS: Precisely what I am doing.
Mr Baldwin: Which is policy, new policy.
Mr Stirling: I am trying to find superannuation, law and order, cadets, ‘sit down money’, welfare …
Mr MILLS: Read the letter properly!
Mr Baldwin: Read new policy, you dill!
Mr MILLS: This is a response to a problem you have created and we are defining a difference.
Mr Stirling: … instead of this rambling.
Mr Elferink: Why do you hate this Chamber so much now, Syd?. Why do you hate this Chamber so much now, eh?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Public servants - let me assure them that I have no wish to create more turmoil within the public service by conducting a wholesale review of the structure as put in place by this government, but there are areas that must change because the priorities of the CLP government are different from those of Labor. No better example is available in the way this government has downgraded Asian Relations and Trade. Fourteen years ago, my predecessor as CLP leader, Marshall Perron, created a Minister for Asian Relations and Trade with departmental back up to positively promote the Territory’s cause with our neighbours in the north. It has been a fundamental tenet of territory development, or it was up until August 2001.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move that the Leader of the Opposition be granted an extension of time to continue his remarks.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted? No, leave is not granted.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, there is no extension of time because the standing orders are clear. If you cannot be organised enough to get your remarks down within the 20 minutes required under the standing orders relating to Matters of Public Importance, bad luck.
I will tell you why you went over your 20 minutes. We heard about superannuation. I looked back at the letter about public importance, not a mention about superannuation. We heard about law and order, imprisonment rates and the rest. Is it in the letter? No. Not a mention of that. It was not a matter of public importance raised in here, so how dare you treat this Assembly with contempt and bring into your matter of public importance all manner of rambling areas? Cadets, welfare, ‘sit down money’, public service! Not mentioned. If it is a matter of public importance, you should have the decency and courtesy under the standing orders to put it in the letter to the Speaker so that the government can respond.
Now, if you want debate on your points raised in your matter of public importance, put them in the letter, get it to the Speaker before 8 am and they will be addressed. They will be addressed. It was the same treatment under the same standing order that existed when we were in opposition all those years. I have a bit of an idea, after 13 years in this place, about the rules.
Mr Baldwin: Not much.
Mr STIRLING: The member over the back, you would be too lazy to ever get a matter of public importance up.
Mr Baldwin: You are the lazy one. You do not want to debate anything. You are absolutely lazy.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly!
Mr STIRLING: He would never be bothered to do it. He well knows the rules: 20 minutes and that is it. He well knows that if you are going to raise a matter of public importance, you have the decency to stick by the standing orders and advise the Speaker so that the government has some idea of what it is about and can respond. Some of those matters are quite worthy of debate and we would be happy to debate it, but you dropped them …
Mr Baldwin: You are the minister. Deal with them! Deal with them as the minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, order!
Mr STIRLING: You dropped them in defiance of standing orders without giving government time.
The other point the Leader of the Opposition needs to realise is the fact that they have General Business Day, which is the day on the parliamentary calendar that rolls around every so often when the opposition has the opportunity to put on the floor of this House for debate any matter of policy that it wants to stand up and deliver. It is a far more appropriate time - in fact, the proper time and the time allowed for that on General Business Day - to propose statements, motions, any item you like in order to get your agenda discussed.
A matter of public importance is a matter that is important enough in the public arena to be brought to the House on that day and it is allowed the time of the Chamber to deal with that matter on that day. It is certainly not a tool for a wide-ranging, rambling debate touching on 101 issues.
Nonetheless, despite the fact that the opposition seems to be confused with the difference between a media release and a policy, someone over there has been very busy. Someone over there has been quite busy over the last few days. I suspect Gary Shipway, given his name – we have CLP government that will change the Territory’s payroll system: Gary Shipway. Good one, Shippers. He has been up there doing his job. CLP will give Territory public servants opportunity; government’s hire-from-the-south policy will be ditched: Shippers again. HIH jobs levy to go: Gary Shipway. Asian Relations and Trade will be returned to the priority it should be: Gary Shipway. The days of ‘sit down money’ must end: Gary Shipway. Shippers has had a big couple of days, getting out a couple of media releases, which they have the hide to come in here and call policies.
Policy implies a little bit of consideration, a little bit of development, a little bit of detail, unlike a media release which, in fact, they are not even policies, in some parts they say, ‘We will examine other areas of taxation particularly those instances where Territorians have to pay a tax on a tax’. Who signed up to that under the inter-governmental agreement? Who was the government in the year 2000? Who was the Treasurer and the Chief Minister of the day who signed up that that is the way it will be done? Who put up the tax, the stamp duty on insurance from 8% to 10%?
Mr Baldwin: Oh go home, you are a joke. Sit down.
Mr STIRLING: You did, you goose. You were probably in Cabinet at the time it went down and now you want to take it all off. You were a part and you were a member and a minister of the government that signed up to the inter-governmental agreement where all the states and territories said this is the way GST will operate no matter what, it goes on the final product. If we are to walk away from the inter-governmental agreement, it may well leave us on a sticky wicket, and I would be interested to know what the implications there might be. It is pretty easy from opposition; you want to tear everything you ever signed up to. Anything you ever signed up to you want to walk away from.
Let us get to some of the detail of just what is in this great manifesto on economics, because Territorians need to understand it is a recipe for huge tax increases, and fewer services, and it will send the Territory broke, just like you did prior to August 2001.
Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition proposes the abolition of payroll tax; that will be $96m plus hit on the Territory budget. In fact, in his media release, he gets it drastically wrong because he refers to payroll tax and the $96m take, and he says, ‘A sizeable part of the $96m is a book entry within the government because departments and agencies pay payroll tax. This is not additional revenue for a government’. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
The $96m is entirely raised from outside of the government and the revenue from government is about $49m. There is the $96m problem for a start, and this is what happens when a media release begins before policy without any consideration or in fact close examination of the facts. So even before he starts his campaign on economics, he has a $96m blunder in his mathematics. That does not bode well for a future Treasurer in a Northern Territory government.
He goes on to spend some time talking about other taxes. He wants to do away with all state-like taxes. Apart from leaving us absolutely entirely in the hands of the federal government, at its mercy, what impact do you think that would have at the Treasurers’ conference? When we go to Canberra, we have to do battle with some pretty hard-nosed Treasurers around this country from the likes of Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia.
We have to battle to ensure that the relativities are maintained so that the Northern Territory either maintains or improves its share, so we can get money that compensates us for the distance, and for our small and scattered population across a huge land mass. Every time we go there, as I did early last year, it was the premiers of Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria who were launching attack on the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation. That would be enormously damaging to the Territory, to have all of those disadvantaged factors taken into account - where they do and give us more money - to have that thrown out. However, if we were to front there and say, ‘Oh, we are not raising any taxes. We are just here to get our share from the Commonwealth’, can you imagine how long you would last asking the federal Treasurer to defend you against the mercenaries of the likes of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. They would simply chop you up and spit you out. You would certainly get a very poor deal out of the Commonwealth.
How on earth could we maintain the argument for a high relativity based on all the factors of disadvantage that we have in the Territory when we make no taxation effort at all on our own behalf? What it would result in, with absolute certainty, is a reduction in federal financial assistance, and you would have to say the Commonwealth would have no choice but to do that. So we would not have a $96m hole, as we have already found on the first read of the figures, but a much greater hole to repair as the Commonwealth grants dried up.
How would you fix that if you were the Leader of the Opposition and you have trotted into this mine field? You do not have a clue what you are talking about. What would you do? You would have to cut services or you would have to introduce new taxes to make up the shortfall. With the new taxes that you would introduce, you would look at the Productivity Commission, and that says you should put up your land tax. We do not even have one. Notwithstanding the fact that the Leader of the Opposition says we have increased land tax, we do not even have one. He said in a media release the other day that we have increased land tax - fire services he might look at, ambulance levy he might look at and, of course, those sorts of taxes would begin to apply to everyone. Small business and Territorians would pay them and it would be a direct blow to the pockets of small business which currently do not pay payroll tax if they are under $600 000. However, they would pay a land tax, a fire services levy.
Cuts to services …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: You want to have a look at that land tax in terms of the state comparisons - $12 800 in New South Wales - not applied here at all. That is why we are the second lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia. That is why we have the lowest rate of taxation on small business in the country by a factor of half. The next state closest to us is South Australia and they are over twice what we levy on small business. But you put in your land tax and fire services levy and everyone pays; small business as well.
You also have to cut services and the three big spenders, there is no secret there, are education, health and police. So straight away the CLP would be reversing the improvements we have made in those areas. In fact, in his media statement today, the Opposition Leader refers to ‘Labor’s social engineering’. He did not expand on that tonight. I am still not clear what he means. However, we think if it means keeping people healthy and that is social engineering, then yes, we stand for it, we are right in line for it. If it is getting people educated, if that is social engineering, then we are guilty of that too. If having more police on the streets is social engineering, then Labor is right into social engineering and, in fact, proud of it.
He has made an absolute meal of his first foray into economic policy. He has the figures wrong, he has threatened the economic future of the Territory, he is going to cut services, he is going to send us broke again.
Let us go to this quickly to some of the detail of the motion. In trend terms, May 2002, which was your starting point for comparison of employment, was the most recent peak in the Territory’s employment cycle – not surprising why he chose May 2002. Fair, fair. It would have been fair to choose August 2001 when we came to government, but why would you pick May 2002? Aha! Because it was the highest! It coincided with the pick-up in employment and the early phases of the railway.
If the comparison has been made from the most recent trough in trend employment - and when was that? June 2000, at just 90 000, rather than the most recent peak, rather than the estimated loss of 3000 jobs that he comes in and trumpets about rather gleefully, there would have, in fact, been an increase of 6200 jobs. Statistics are great. They are a great tool for informing you, but they are also a mischievous tool depending on how you apply them and what sort of time frames you apply them against.
‘Fewer Territorians have full-time jobs now than August 2001’. The number of unemployed persons has fallen from 8200 in trend terms in August 2001, to just 4600 in January 2004. In the same period, the trend unemployment rate fell from 7.8% to 4.5%. Of course, what he does say is that it is all going to be fuelled or he is going to pay for all of this from GST revenues because of increase from $1.2bn in 2000-01 to more than $1.6bn by $400m, and Territory business is suffering under the burden of the tax on jobs, that is payroll tax. There is no GST windfall - let us get this straight once and forever.
We get what we expected to get based on our relativity. If there had been a windfall to the extent that you are talking about, why are we still running a deficit budget? Why would we not have had $300m or $400m tucked up in a bank or a hollow log? There is no hollow log. We are still spending more than we receive; we are still in deficit territory. There is no GST windfall. We are already, as I said, a low-taxing jurisdiction. The Commonwealth Grants Commission 2003 update confirms the Territory levies, taxes, fees and charges at just 92% of the level which would reflect an effort comparable with the other states and the ACT. If the Territory were to reduce taxes further, it would risk the Territory’s GST revenue funding by highlighting a lack of own source revenue effort which would encourage the other jurisdictions - they already did, they did it last year - New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, to get together to try to bang Costello and push the feds around for a review of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and that most important principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation.
That is what would happen. The nett benefit to the Territory budget from GST arrangements is expected to be $76m in 2003-04. That remains less than the $126m hole that they left us with when we came to government and the Territory budget must also service an accumulated nett debt of close to $2bn.
Madam Speaker, in terms of what the GST has meant to the Northern Territory in 2001-02 - zilch, zilch. In fact we got budget balancing assistance which was the commitment from the Commonwealth that you would not be worse off under GST than you were under the new arrangements. If the GST pool did not get you to where you would have been had there been no change to the tax system, they would give you budget balancing assistance. New South Wales is still in there. We will be in there until about 2007. We moved out of budget balancing assistance for the first time in 2002-03. What was the extent of the GST effect pushing us into greenfield or more ahead of what we would have been under the old arrangements? $9m. Zilch in 2001-02, $9m in 2002-03, standing now in 2003-04 at $76m with a question mark. Why is it a question mark? Because the feds still have enormous difficulty estimating what the size of the GST pool will be because, of course, it depends on consumption.
To look at the GST in isolation is misleading. Although GST revenues are increasing, the Commonwealth is systematically at the same tightening the purse strings in the areas of other funding provided to the states and territories. The Australian Health Care Agreement signed late last year is a typical example. States were forced to sign an agreement which represented a cut of $16m to the Territory, $1bn cut nationally compared to continuing the previous agreement. They signed under duress because it would have been further cut and there would have been penalties applied by the federal government if states and territories did not sign up.
Territory businesses suffering under the burden of the tax on jobs, ie payroll tax: payroll is reducing. In our current term we have reduced the payroll tax rate from 6.5% to 6.2%, provided in the 2002-03 budget and again in the 2003-04 budget and it is no secret that we have in the forward estimates $3m for 2004-05 and $3m in 2005-06 to put there for further successive reductions. Now, as we set out in our pre-election financial statement that we would push payroll tax levels down to comparable levels of those of our neighbours, that is Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland, and we continue to do that.
Madam Speaker, replacing the payroll tax with another tax does have serious implications for small business. The Territory’s payroll tax is paid by 21% of Territory employers, but just 7% of payroll tax payers operate exclusively in the Territory. Small business does not pay payroll tax but it would pay a land tax, it would pay a fire and emergency services levy as applied in all other states, and it would be also paid by householders, and land tax would be paid by investment property owners. Any time I see Mr George Cridland, he comes up to me, stands on my toes, looks me straight in the eye - he is not a big guy, but he looks me straight in the eye - and he says ‘No land tax’. And I have made him a promise, just to try to get him off the subject, that whilst I am Treasurer of the Northern Territory there will be no land tax, Mr Cridland. And he sort of smiles and we get on to another topic of conversation.
The Territory is a low taxing jurisdiction. The Grants Commission assesses us to be the second lowest taxing jurisdiction. We raised the second lowest tax revenue per capita of all the states and territories and we raised the lowest recurrent tax, for example taxes that occur every year on a regular basis - the payroll tax, the land tax, the fire and emergency services levy, the bank account taxes, motor vehicle registration fees - all of those are from small business. We raised the lowest recurrent. The next highest state, raising just under double, is South Australia and the figures are something like $15 000 plus for South Australia against our $7500. We compare well because unlike most other states and the ACT we do not raise land tax, we do not raise a fire and emergency services levy and we do not stamp duty home mortgages.
Under the Martin government, commercial leases with rent – we have made tax cuts. Commercial leases with rent of $30 000 or less are now exempt. Hiring arrangements with rental receipts below $90 000 are now exempt from stamp duty. The threshold was previously $36 000. First home buyers now receive a maximum concession of $3640 off the cost of stamp duty payable on the purchase of their home. It was previously $2096. It has made our stamp duty payable for a medium-priced first home the second lowest of the states. Other home owners now pay $1500 less stamp duty on the purchase, which made the Territory stamp duty payable on a medium-priced home not being a first home to be third lowest. Corporate groups can now access more efficient asset structures due to the introduction of an exemption that applies to the restructuring of assets and a reduction to the stamp duty payable on the grant or renewal of a franchise.
The Leader of the Opposition has a few problems, Madam Speaker. The first one is to find out how he made the blue about the $96m. He has to straighten that up, and Territorians have to realise that a CLP government will be a high taxing government and he will send us broke.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Leader of the Opposition in the matter of public importance. Before I embark on my speech, I would like to address an issue that the Deputy Chief Minister raised earlier.
I refer you to Standing Order 77, speech time limits, in which it says:
There is no fixed restriction on how much time a person can have other than the first 20 minutes but, at the end of the Standing Order, it says that we can extend time if need be. I cannot tolerate the Deputy Chief Minister walking in here and changing standing orders on the run. There is a process for this, and I tell the Deputy Chief Minister to observe the process. You have bastardised this whole thing for so long, these last two and a half years.
For two and a half years, we have seen this government squander many opportunities to advance the prosperity of the Northern Territory. For two and a half years, we have seen the government’s neglect in fostering business and employment in the Territory. For two and a half years, we have seen the loss of jobs – thousands of jobs, 3000 all up, as he himself admitted - despite the building of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and the onset of the gas onshore projects.
How much more disastrous would it be, the current parlous state of the Northern Territory, had the CLP not delivered on these two projects for the Martin Labor government on a silver platter? The comment in the community that the Martin Labor government does not know how to govern is never truer than now. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the Labor Party never anticipated that it would win the last general election, hence it was not prepared to govern, not ready to govern and they have not been able to get their minds around governing for the Territory.
Since the start of this year, the government has done multiple back flips on its platform initiatives, now seen in the cold light of day as impractical, major impositions on the people of the Northern Territory with government hands in Territorian pockets at every opportunity.
It has been the highest taxing government that we have seen in the Territory. Many have lost count of the number of promises that this Martin Labor government has broken since coming to government. The maladministration is simply unbelievable. Recently, a correspondent sent me a list, which he titled: Martin government first term report card: F (fail). It was a list of Territory Labor maladministration failures. His list extends for three full pages of close type, single line spaced. I have skipped some and paraphrased others for brevity. He wrote, and I quote:
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to Standing Order 94…
Dr LIM: May I have the clock frozen while we actually talk?
Mr HENDERSON: … which is very specific in regards to a member can bring a matter of public importance to the House, to define that matter of public importance in correspondence to the Speaker, and the House then debates the matter.
The Deputy Opposition Leader is ranging from everything from pool fencing to importing public servants from down south. I do not see any mention of these issues or any way where you could construe pool fencing being a matter of public importance that is identified in this letter, which identified four very clear and specific points to you, Madam Speaker, with regard to the number of jobs and the economy and taxation issues. I would ask that members contributing to this debate to stick to the matters that are raised in this particular correspondence. I put on notice that we will not be moving from the convention of two and two on this issue, because the issues that are being raised in this matter are not the ones that are being debated.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, resume your seat. Member for Greatorex.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Greatorex is on his feet, member for Macdonnell.
Dr LIM: I repeat what the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, that in the whole of the letter it says that ‘it is an urgent matter of public importance that a new approach must be found and new policies implemented’. I am giving an overview of what has happened in the Territory, the cause of job losses, the issues that are relating directly to the MPI, and then I will embark on what we will do as a CLP government.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I will say the same to you as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, make sure you tie your arguments into the matter of public importance.
Dr LIM: I shall do that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, the member for Macdonnell has something to say.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I just hope to guide you on this particular issue.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not want your guidance.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, in relation to a precedent in this House on this very topic …
Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on it. The member for Greatorex understands what I have said.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Alice Springs is going backwards also, losing population, while alcohol-related problems and itinerant problems remain too high. Continuous problems in the Education Department due to administrative confusion, teachers dissatisfied, even books refused until fees met, and the list goes on and on.
Definitely, this government has failed in governing for the Northern Territory and, as this correspondent wrote: ‘Who, reading this, could believe Labor passes any test? Even of their objectives, Labor must be expelled’. I, along with many Territorians, am very disappointed in this government, which came in with a blaze of promises that they have now failed to deliver.
The Territory’s slogan is, ‘The Difference is Opportunity’ and indeed, the Territory is full of opportunity, but you would not know it looking at how this government has promoted the Territory. It has been a wasted two and a half years. It is no wonder that Territorians are just dying to get rid of this government. The Chief Minister knows it and she is running scared. Her series of back-flips alone demonstrate a government in damage control.
While GST funds have been pouring into the Territory since Labor has been in government, many initiatives have been cut back. Larapinta Drive upgrade, which was on the forward capital works program as recent as late last year, has now fallen off the list. DTAL, which employs people in this community, has been unable to deliver its driver training in Darwin to students at Kormilda, as they were told there were not sufficient funds for them to do the course. The announcement by the minister for education that he is providing $2m for school equipment and teacher furniture, but on further investigation it is found to be money from next year’s budget. And then, the $1m promised by the health minister for equipment just last week, is this also money borrowed from next year’s budget? So, more opportunities lost.
Has the government been so incompetent that it has run out of money and they have had to cancel planned projects and borrow money from next year’s budget for others? You have received, as the leader said, $400m more than the CLP government did in 2000-01. A CLP government will be strong in promoting stability and security in business. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the CLP’s intention to significantly reduce payroll tax. We will ensure that, on being in government, the Northern Territory payroll tax rate will be the lowest in the country, and we adjust it to stay the lowest in the country as other states strive to follow our initiative, with our ultimate aim of a zero rate. To complement the reduction of payroll tax will be the threshold. At the moment it is pegged at $600 000, a level that has not been adjusted for many years. A CLP government will lift the threshold so that it does not prove a barrier for business to take on more employees.
The Treasurer glibly trotted out the media release about how much it will cost - $90m or $96m he said earlier. The CLP never articulated that it would have a zero payroll tax rate from day one - never did.
With the time limit that I have, now is not the time to go into figures and calculations. The CLP has managed good budgets before and will do so again. We will manage good budgets that will create opportunities for Territorians with growing of jobs. We will reverse the population drift. There will be business confidence. There will be population growth. There will be construction growth. The Territory will again be the place of opportunity, and black and white will benefit.
Law and order - a pre-election promise by the Martin Labor government that they will be tough on crime. Has the Chief Minister looked at the papers today? Just today’s paper will be enough. You do not have to go very far back. Look at this: ‘Gang Warfare’. Has she seen the concerns expressed about the youth gang warfare in the suburbs? This is the tough on crime policy of the Martin Labor government. Tough on crime – it is a laugh. As soon as it came into government, the Martin Labor government scrapped mandatory sentencing. The Chief Minister effectively told Territorians: ‘Do what you like. It is okay, you will not be punished for it’. Under the CLP, if you do the crime, you do the time. Territorians are sick of being victims of crime. People are saying they have had enough. Women and children want to feel safe in their communities and the CLP will deliver policies that will engender that environment.
In terms of education for which I have responsibility, I have always expressed a belief that education provides the avenue by which a person can achieve his or her best potential. To do that, you provide good education to our children. For that reason, the CLP will devote significant attention to provision of good education for all Territorians. Even in the short time that I have had responsibility for the portfolio, I have learnt that class sizes have continued to be a vexed issue for teachers. At the outset, the CLP government will introduce class sizes of 20 students per teacher in the first three years of primary school. Over time, it is hoped that this teacher to student ratio would be extended across the primary sector. Talking to teachers recently, I have heard of the quality teaching that they can provide when their classes are 20 students, whereas classes of 25 or more now becomes more an exercise of mini-crowd control than teaching.
I have also explored the issue of pastoral care for our schoolchildren. For too long, school student counsellors have been appointed among the cohort of teachers in a school. Often these teachers-cum-counsellors have little counselling skills, but are appointed by the principal to undertake an activity as a partial load during the teaching day. I know that parents want their children to be better looked after than that. Using teacher/counsellors for such a critical job is not performing to Territorians’ expectations for their children. I want the student counsellors to be specialist counsellors whose duty will be to provide student counsellor services only. They will be supernumerary to the number of teachers in any school, and I will ensure the correct ratio of counsellors to students in each region, based on an effective counsellor/student ratio that allows students to get counselling that they need.
The other side of training is in careers counselling. There has been the practice in our schools to have a teacher designated the job to coordinate careers counselling. In my opinion, teachers are trained to teach, to educate, to achieve satisfactory student outcomes in terms of curriculum learning. Their skills should be devoted to that. Careers counselling should be provided by specialist careers counsellors recruited from industry to provide advice derived from real life industry experience. Students, whether they wish to continue to university or into trade or traineeship, could seek the professional advice of a dedicated careers counsellor. I know the teaching industry and parents alike will support me in my ambition to deliver these extra bodies into schools to perform their specialised functions. With improved careers advice, I anticipate that more students will seek vocational education as their primary choice. It is unfortunate that the national debate on post-compulsory education has focussed so much on higher education only.
For members’ information, of the national cohort of Year 12 students only 30% achieve a place in university. Of that 30%, only half of them ever graduate with a qualification. Therefore, there is 85% of our Year 12 students who require educating and training other than at a university. Under the CLP government, we would devote adequate resources to vocational education, taking it out of the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and set it back in its own departmental structure, run by people who understand vocational education and training.
Aboriginal Territorians will be supported to develop businesses of their own. A land-rich group of people, they will be assisted with skills to engender benefits from their land. Through their economic development will come financial independence allowing them to get away from soul destroying welfare system. The opportunities that are so abundant in the Territory will be made accessible to Aboriginal Territorians. We are not like the Martin Labor government whose policies for Aboriginal people have been to continue them in a welfare cycle of ever increasing dependence on welfare. That has always been Labor’s weakness a penchant for social engineering rather than creating an environment where an individual can achieve his or her greatest potential.
Territorians are also concerned about their health and how health services are being delivered particularly from the hospitals. For two and half years the Chief Minister has allowed this important portfolio to be managed by an ineffective minister whom she has described as being unable to communicate, and a new minister who spends more time swanning around overseas holding the hand of the member for Wanguri than being at home looking after the ailing Health Department. Under the CLP, health services would improve patients accessing services in a timely manner …
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move that the member be given an extension of time so that he may complete his remarks.
Leave denied.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker. With regards to a matter of public importance, the standing orders indicate that there is a limit of two hours for the conduct of a matter of public importance and to restrict members who are making contributions to strictly 20 minutes I believe is outside standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: The time limits are listed in the standing orders …
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I understand that they are listed. However, because it still falls within the parameters set in the standing orders of two hours with an extension being afforded to the honourable member, it would still keep us within the parameter of two hours.
Madam SPEAKER: I realise that but it is the wish of the parliament whether the leave is granted and the leave is not granted.
Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. I quoted earlier at the start of my speech Standing Order 77, and 77 extends for nearly a page and a half. Right at the end of Standing Order 77 it says also:
Madam SPEAKER: But leave was not granted. That is what I have said to you.
Ms CARTER: Point of order, Madam Speaker. If I may when you asked whether we would second the motion then, we actually had the numbers. We had one extra person in the House on the ayes.
Dr Lim: And nobody called division.
Madam SPEAKER: No, but I asked if leave was granted which was defeated.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: When you put the question, ‘Is leave granted’, if there is one dissenting voice, leave is not granted.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, if I may speak to the Clerk’s advice. For the last three minutes we have had three members of the government sneaking through the doors of the lobby. Prior to that there were more members of the opposition in this Chamber than the government. Now, if the Leader of Government Business has the voice of his 13 members then the rest of them do not have to be here at all and he can just sit there to represent the 13 members.
Madam SPEAKER: I cannot wind the clock back, member for Greatorex. The Clerk’s advice is if you want to test it, call a division.
Dr LIM: Well, it is a pretty pointless exercise, as you well know, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, let us get to the context and the point of this debate this evening, a matter of public importance debate that the Leader of Opposition gave notice as per standing orders this morning. I well recall the member for Macdonnell pontificating here when he was on this side of the House about the sanctity of the matter of public importance debate and how it really had to be referenced and targeted to issues of the day. He went to volumes of parliamentary precedents and history through the Westminster system. I do not have the Parliamentary Record with me from that time, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker. With regard to the issue just raised, the very self-same position was taken by the member for Nhulunbuy when a matter of public importance was raised by the then opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I well remember being lectured by the member for Macdonnell about having to stick very specifically to matters of public importance that were immediately to the public’s mind. There has to be very specific reference in terms of the letter, and I am sure that with a little bit of research, we can pull back those comments.
If we look to the letter here today and the contributions from the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I find it absolutely astounding that in terms of the context of the letter delivered to Madam Speaker this morning that deals with noting the allegation that more than 3000 jobs have been lost since May 2002, noting fewer Territorians have full-time jobs than in August 2001, noting whilst GST revenues blah, blah, and noting this government seems to be unable to ease the situation – that is jobs and GST revenues – that as an urgent matter of public importance, a new approach must be found and new policies implemented in relation to the points that were noted.
Any student of English language would interpret that the new approach and new policies as stated in the last sentence are reference to the issues arising from the alleged job losses and alleged $400m increase in GST revenues. I find it astounding from someone who achieved very high positions in the education profession that you could not construe – if you wanted to discuss the world and not only the Northern Territory economy, but social policy, if he wanted to discuss that as a specific issue of public importance, he would have included the other issues in the letter.
That is by the by because this really is an abuse of process and the system in regards to some of the issues that were trotted out in here tonight. How on earth you could get pool fencing into a matter of public importance on jobs and GST revenues absolutely astounds me. Then, again, I have come to learn that nothing that the member for Greatorex can say in this House can astound me any more.
There is a long way to go between now and the next election. If the first few months of the Leader of the Opposition’s reign is anything to go by, he is going to have to do a lot better than the magic pudding economics and the mantra that they are going to cut and abolish all taxes but continue to maintain all services and invest even more money.
That will not wash. As my colleague, the Treasurer, said: a media release does not a policy make. The scrutiny from this side of the House will come into supposed policy announcements that may come from the members opposite. Policies are supposed to have detail, and they are supposed to be costed and funded. Abolishing all state taxes and reliance on GST revenues is absolutely out of the realms of even the most basic understanding of economics and the financial relationship between the Commonwealth and the other states.
We have to maintain our revenue effort. That is an absolute fundamental of the system. We have to maintain our revenue effort commensurate with the other states and the Commonwealth. If the Leader of the Opposition reckons that he can swan down to Treasurers’ conferences and look his colleague, Peter Costello, in the eye and say, ‘We are going to abolish all taxes and charges in the Northern Territory, but we want the Commonwealth to give us more’, he has another think coming.
Territory business will see this for what it is: an absolute opportune, desperate grasp for a media headline from a Leader of the Opposition who has made absolutely zero impact in the first three months he has been in the job. It is a promise to work towards the abolition of payroll tax, $96m; how are you going to fund that? Not a word in terms of how that is going to be funded. There are three ways that it can be dealt with, the $96m black hole in the opposition’s policy, as it was enunciated today. There are three ways: you can raise other taxes and charges or implement new taxes and charges. The payroll tax is a tax that everybody in this nation would like to see go, but it is a tax that is levied on businesses with a payroll of $600 000 or more, and small business does not have to pay the payroll tax. If you are going to abolish payroll tax on the big end of town, you are going to have to implement new taxes on every business in the Northern Territory. The only avenues there are land tax and a fire services duty, or a horrendous increase in stamp duty, so you can fund your $96m by raising revenue in other areas.
Madam Speaker, the other thing you can do is slash spending. You can slash services to the tune of $96m. If that is the approach, then the Leader of the Opposition has to say which agencies are going to bear the burden of that $96m cut, how many public servants are going to be thrown on to the scrap heap, how many schools and health services are going to be closed, how many of the extra 200 police that the government is committed to putting out onto our streets you are not going to put out on the streets, and return the Northern Territory to the levels of crime and law and order problems that we saw two years ago when they were in government.
You can slash services, and you can cut public service jobs, that is another way you can fund your $96m. The third way, which was the tried and trusted way under the previous administration, is to put it on the bankcard. Go and borrow the money, borrow money from the banks and pay for recurrent expenditure. They just keep digging a hole for future generations of Territorians. Do not worry about the future, do not worry about services to Territorians in the future. Put it all on the bankcard now, it will help us get back into office.
Well, Territorians have learnt never, certainly never, to trust members opposite with the Territory’s coffers when they were totally exposed when we came to government in terms of the deceit and the deception of the budget papers that were presented to the parliament just eight weeks before the last Territory election, where the budget papers showed a projected deficit for the financial year to the tune of about $8m and it came in at $126m.
There are three ways you can fund tax cuts: by increasing other taxes, by slashing services, or by putting it on the bankcard. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition did not go to any of those and talked about windfall gains under the GST. My colleague, the Treasurer, gave a very clear description in terms of those GST arrangements coming in as they were projected, and certainly the increase in GST revenues of $76m that were projected in 2003-04 certainly remain far less than $100m annual budget deficit that we inherited, and the overall Territory debt which, per capita, is far and away in excess of any other state of close to $2bn.
The actual financial bankruptcy and policies of the opposition are going to continue in the lead-up to the next Territory election. They have absolutely no creditability when it comes to budget management and telling Territorians the truth about the state of the Northern Territory’s finances, and running out as policy uncosted, unfunded promises to slash taxes to small business, to eradicate a whole raft of taxes, without saying how you are actually going to fund those commitments. The business community will very quickly see through that and, certainly, they will not be impressed.
The Leader of the Opposition has put out a so-called policy today, which turns out to be a media release that was totally inaccurate. We look forward to further work from the opposition in coming up with detailed costed policies. The benchmark has been set - fully costed and signed off by Access Economics; nothing, but nothing, other than fully costed policies that are signed off by the likes of Access Economics as being independently verified.
Territorians will not believe them. Territorians will not believe when a Leader of the Opposition comes out and says, ‘We are going to abolish payroll tax and a whole raft of other government taxes’. Unless you can say how you are going to fund that and have that independently assessed and audited, Territorians will not believe you. It is magic pudding economics at its most fundamental. It is absolutely amazing that somebody who achieved very senior roles in education could not put a bit more effort into developing policies.
I will not go through and focus on all of the red herrings that other members opposite have spoken in regards to every social and economic issue that the Territory is facing at the moment. However, I will focus on what was in the MPI: the number of jobs that have supposedly been lost to the economy. My colleague, the Treasurer, very clearly showed that it depends where you start your flat line from. If you start it from the peak of the jobs boom which was absolutely there - large, lumpy infrastructure projects, peaks and troughs - we are going to have another one coming towards the end of this calendar year where, if you talk to Bechtel, the requirement for 900 tradesmen is there to be working on the LNG plant. That is going to be great for the period of time whilst they are there. To count those people as permanent parts of the Northern Territory work force and that peak that is going to be achieved on one specific project - should be carried through - again, it is distortion of the real activity that is happening in the economy.
In the same way, if you take it at a real low, you could argue that there has been a 6000 jobs growth in the economy. The pleasing thing to see in the numbers and the trends, is that the rate of unemployment is falling in the Northern Territory and people are returning to the work force. We can see that is only going to improve throughout the rest of this calendar year and next calendar year, with the huge projects that are coming to the Northern Territory. I just wish that members opposite, for once, would stop talking the economy down - a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom and gloom. Where is the excitement about the $5bn LNG project that is occurring across the harbour at Wickham Point? Where is the excitement about that and grasping those opportunities and working with Territory business to make sure that they get their share? Many of them already are. I was out there a couple of weeks ago, and there are a lot of happy Territory businesses which are participating in the project.
We have major Defence projects about to kick off this year in a very significant way. There is $78m at Robertson Barracks for the Air ‘87 Tiger helicopters - 20 years through life service and support for that – and Territory businesses are excited about that; $52m at Bradshaw for the field training area at Timber Creek - increased Defence exercises that are going to come to the Northern Territory; the $50m announcement by Vopak at long last, relocating the tank farm out to East Arm - 70% of that work is going to go to local contractors. Where was the great acclamation from members opposite saying that is a fantastic project for the Northern Territory and should give everybody a shot in the arm? There is $100m committed to the convention centre to leverage $600m to $700m worth of redevelopment of the wharf - that is going to happen; $27.5m to boost tourism; $20m to Desert Knowledge. It goes on and on. Where is the support for the economy out there? Why aren’t you out there encouraging investment, encouraging business to invest in the Northern Territory because of this wave of work that is coming? No, we are going to talk doom and gloom, we are going to talk down the economy, we are going to talk down everything that is happening in the Northern Territory and we are not going to raise a cent in our own revenue. Territorians will not believe them, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I also rise to speak on this MPI tonight. I will begin by pointing out to honourable members some history in relation to matters of public importance. The issue of the specific nature of a matter brought before this House was raised on 10 October 2000 and indeed the then Leader of Government Business, Mr Palmer, climbed to his feet and tried to point out that the then opposition member, the member for Stuart and still now the member for Stuart, was trying to introduce a matter of public importance which was too vague.
It is interesting to pick up on the member for Nhulunbuy’s comments at that stage. This is what the member for Nhulunbuy had to say about matters of public importance:
And guess what? You won. That is exactly the point, you won.
So when your colleague comes in here and says, ‘I remember being lectured by the member for Macdonnell’, well, I will tell you what, it rests on the decision of the Speaker. So do not rewrite history when it suits you. What are you scared of in this House? Why are you scared of this Chamber hearing the opinions of members? That is really the hallmark of what this government has become.
Madam Speaker, I would like to continue with some of the comments that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to make, and he has asked me to continue with his comments. I am happy to do so, I am proud to do so. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to go along in this theme:
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Again, I raise Standing Order 94 that very specifically refers to ‘a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed, a very definite Matter of Public Importance’. Now, the letter notes alleged job losses and talks about GST revenues, and seeks a new approach and policies in relation to the points that are noted. Issues in regards to where public servants are hired from and the Asian Relations and Trade department have absolutely nothing to do with the matter of public importance and the definitive matters that have been identified by the Opposition Leader in his letter.
Madam SPEAKER: I reiterate what I said earlier. Member for Macdonnell, would you make sure your remarks conform to the matter of public importance.
Mr ELFERINK: I will certainly do that.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I find this a total abuse…
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, I have allowed a lot of leverage today from both sides on the debate at hand. So we shall allow the member for Macdonnell to continue.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about a couple of issues. Very quickly I wish to touch on two matters, and I will be bringing notice of these two matters into the House in due course for the next General Business Day The first matter I wish to discuss very quickly is an idea which I know has the support of the police association and, as shadow minister for police, I believe that, after doing some research interstate, it is worthwhile introducing a piece of legislation in to the Northern Territory which will prevent police officers individually being sued when they are acting in good faith.
The exact structure of that piece of legislation I will reveal to members of this House and in due course I will give a second reading speech, but the thrust of it will be quite simple. The thrust of it will be to protect those police officers who are doing their jobs and doing it well, and doing it to the very best of their ability in difficult circumstances, from being the subject of litigation when they are acting in good faith. This does not have any effect, of course, on the issue of vicarious liability of the police force itself, and those normal rules will continue to operate in that environment.
However, I am aware of suggestions in the past where police officers have been sued for purposes other than actually proving any form of negligence, in an effort to either discredit them as police officers, or to put pressure on them in their operation, as well as the fact that police officers have to make decisions in less than perfect situations. I believe that they should not have to worry about the fact that their house might be riding on that decision that they make at that time. It would be a very valuable contribution of this government to support the bill when I bring it in, to protect our police officers, without limiting the ability of people who feel a need to pursue legal action against the police force itself. As I said, I will enlighten the House further of what I am planning to do, in due course.
The other thing I wanted to touch on is the other bill that I wish to bring before this House on the next General Business Day, and that is to protect our ambulance officers. If you look at the Criminal Code now, there is a specific offence to assault a police officer, and makes it an aggravated assault in the workplace. As members will be fully aware, an assault is an unlawful application of force, and members would also be aware that the definition of ‘application of force’ and like terms include striking, touching, moving and the application of heat, light, noise, electrical or other energy, gas, odour or any other substance or thing if applied to such a degree as to cause injury or personal discomfort.
Taking that into consideration, then to scream into somebody’s ear while they are doing their job is an application of noise and will cause personal discomfort. I have seen it happen to ambulance officers when I did voluntary ambulance work in the past. It happened to me. It is very irritating and prevents you from doing your job. I believe that, like an assault against a police officer, it should also be considered to be an aggravated assault.
I also point out to members that the act of obscuring or obstructing an ambulance officer - though you would think that commonsense would dictate that you would not need a piece of legislation like that, but unfortunately, it happens – should also be introduced. Ambulance officers deserve the protection of this parliament. I am sure that members on both sides of this House would feel the same way.
I draw members’ attention to Outback Ambulance, Volume 14, No 1, December 2003. On pages 24 and 25 there is an article titled ‘Hazards of the Job’. With this, there are a couple of photographs. There is one ambulance with a star picket through the windscreen, jammed into the driver’s seat area. There is another ambulance which is a station wagon, which has lost its windscreen –clearly been struck by an object. There is a description by the author of that article, Mr Gary Carter, who is an ambulance officer in Alice Springs.
I have to digress briefly. My wife is also an ambulance officer in Alice Springs again after eight years of working offshore. So I have to declare a personal interest and do so readily and willingly and proudly, I must say.
At the end of the article after he described, effectively, being attacked by an armed assailant –which is an aggravated assault in its own right – he says this:
I believe that this is an excellent proposal and I look forward to debating the matter in the House and having the matter passed into legislation as soon as practical. I look forward to government support of it eventually.
I also want to discuss Docker River and policing issues there. I say to the police minister: just not good enough! The police minister has built a police station at Kintore, which was on the long-term forward projections of the CLP government. They have entered into a bi-state agreement with Western Australia which I hope works very effectively and produces a good outcome for the people of Kintore.
However, the people of Docker River have been left swinging in the breeze, in that they have had deaths there recently and almost riotous conditions. They have had a house burnt down. It is my understanding at one stage 12 police officers were sent to the community to help settle things down. The fact of the matter is the community needs more support than it is currently getting.
The police officers sat Yulara are trying their very hardest to provide a service. This is in no way a criticism of them. However, at the end of the day they are still 210 km-odd from the people living at Docker River. Even on the best call-out scenario, you are waiting for at least 2 or 2 hours before you can get a police response to the most urgent crimes in the Docker River area.
I am aware that as part of the bi-state agreement that the minister did not do enough to ensure that the police station found its way to the Territory side of the border. However, there is still more to be done for the Docker River community. The Docker River community deserves the protection that this government is duty bound to give them. I would urge the police minister in the strongest possible terms to speak to the council there and organise the funding for police aides and the appropriate support for police aides to be maintained there, as well as assist the community in supplying decent accommodation for visiting police officers so many more overnight patrols can be done from both sides of the border in accordance with the bi-state agreement as it currently operates.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on the subject of police issues, I also raise again the situation at Watarrka, Kings Canyon: 300 000 tourists movements every year through the place, and 450 000 go through Ayers Rock, to give people an idea. At Ayers Rock there are four gazetted police officers, there is also an ambulance centre and support from a health clinic and all sorts of things. What is available at Watarrka? One clinic staff officer who also has the responsibility for looking after the small outstations in the area. The responsibility for looking after that area falls largely on the private business of Ian and Lyn Conway who run Kings Creek Station, by and large, and the provision of an emergency service trailer does not help because of the turnover of population in the area.
Every time you get somebody trained up at the actual Kings Canyon Resort, they are gone before too long, that is the way that these resorts work. These people are effectively now being indirectly taxed by this government in the reliance that this government has on their sense of civic duty. Their sense of civic duty means that they spend hundreds, if not thousands, of man hours every single year, going to accidents, making their airstrip available, all those sorts of things. And I should know because I have been there, I have stood there on the airstrip at 2 am in the morning helping to evacuate an Italian tourist. This is staff which is not paid for by the Northern Territory government, is given no assistance by the Northern Territory government and really deserves a lot more assistance. What terrifies me is that one of these days these people are going to respond to a call and their family or staff are going to be injured in the process or themselves, or that they are going to find themselves the subject of some sort of litigation because they are trying to do the right thing.
I urge this government in the strongest possible terms to contact the Conways and find some solution, put in decent numbers of health staff, even look at putting a police officer or a police station in that area. The amount of traffic and tourist movements in those areas is now getting to the point where it needs that sort of infrastructure. If you can find the wherewithal to build a police station at Kintore, which probably has 1000 movements per year, in terms of people coming and going from the community, perhaps a bit more, then you should be able to find a proper way of supporting the Kings Canyon area and the Kings Creek Station area which has 300 times that population movement through the area. It is an urgent situation. In the last few weeks, there have been accidents which these people have had to respond to. It costs them fuel, it costs them vehicles, and it costs them staff. It is just absurd that this situation is being allowed to continue.
It is absolutely absurd and this situation needs to be addressed. I urge the government in the strongest possible terms, get down there, communicate with these people, at least answer their letters, and find a way around this. At the moment the burden that they are carrying is far too onerous to expect any non-professional organisation, as they are, they are a tourist operation, they are not an emergency services response group, they are not professional doctors or first aiders. They are people with a strong sense of civic duty. One of these days there is going to be an accident that involves a bus which will be beyond their capacity. There needs to be a better response in place. I urge the government in the strongest possible terms, fix this problem and fix it soon.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with great regret when I inform the House of the passing of the second son of Yama Munungiritj and Lawawa Munungiritj of the Yarrwiti Gumatj people of Yirrkala in north-east Arnhem Land. Mr Munungiritj was the nephew of the very prominent fighter for land rights, Roy Marika, MBE. He was married to Raymattja Marika, the father of four children and grandfather to three. Mr Munungiritj was a traditional owner and a senior community member in his own right. He was always very active in promoting Yolngu culture, particularly in the areas of land and sea management.
He was a founding father of the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation and, for 11 years, helped guide the organisation to be one of the most successful indigenous land and sea management organisations in the country. Proof of Dhimurru’s success as a peak Yolngu organisation for land and sea management was the successful declaration of the Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area covering some 92 000 hectares on the Gove Peninsula. Though Mr Munungiritj always fought hard to guarantee Yolngu authority on the lands, he was a great believer in partnerships between the Yolngu and anyone who could assist Yolngu to manage and care for their traditional estates. In his time with Dhimurru, many successful programs were run by Dhimurru alone and in partnership with many other organisations and instrumentalities. Mr Munungiritj’s success in this work was recognised in part when Dhimurru won the 2002 Landcare Award and the 2001 Banksia Award.
Although his first love was in the area of land and sea management, he led a very active community life as well. As well as responsibilities and traditional ownership matters and ceremony, Mr Munungiritj was active in the Yirrkala Dhanbul Council as a councillor and sometime office holder, including a period as chairman. He was also very active at Yirrkala Community Education Centre, and was especially keen on promoting strong cultural awareness, both among Yolngu and non-Yolngu.
On behalf of the government of the Territory, I extend sincere sympathies to the Munungiritj family, the Marika family, the Yarrwiti Gumatj people, and the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation.
This evening I would also like to honour a very great Territorian, Hilda Jarman Muir. On Australia Day this year, I was privileged to be invited to launch Hilda Muir’s biography, Very Big Journey: My Life as I Remember It, published by Aboriginal Studies Press in Canberra. The book tells the story of the baby girl born at Manangoora in the Gulf who grew up to become a Yanyuwa elder and jungkayi for the country, traditional owner in the Yanyuwa land claim, spokesperson for the stolen generation in the High Court, respected matriarch, world traveller, trusted friend and now, in her senior years, an author.
Hilda has lived in my electorate at the Kurringal Flats for many years and I was very sad when she moved to Leanyer to the new seniors housing estate. I have been fortunate enough to share many precious hours with Hilda and her family talking about her extraordinary life. Hilda has the universal respect and the ability to instantly create an atmosphere of peace and civility in whatever environment she is in. She is a woman that everyone wants to behave well for, not because people are afraid of her, but because she commands total respect. She is a woman of genuine authority.
When I read Very Big Journey, I was very moved when I thought about a little girl only six years old taken away from her family and kin on the back of a horse all the way into Darwin to begin a new life of a very different kind at the Kahlin Compound. Hilda made lifelong friends with the children she met at the Kahlin Compound. They became her family. These were women who were also to become great leaders and spokespeople for their communities and we still mourn the loss of Hilda’s great friend and ‘sister’, Daisy Ruddock. Years later, Hilda’s and Daisy’s stories would become part of a record breaking travelling exhibition by the National Archives called Between Two Worlds.
Hilda’s husband and father of her children, the young and handsome, Bill Muir, had a distinguished war record, seeing active combat in the Pacific theatre at Papua New Guinea and Milne Bay. His death during Cyclone Tracy while protecting his family, and of Hilda’s loss, is one of the saddest parts of the book. Hilda, herself injured and quickly evacuated to Brisbane, only heard of his death days later, was robbed of a funeral or even a chance to say goodbye to the man who died looking after his wife and family.
Hilda has risen above the many obstacles she has faced because she is an extraordinary woman. Much of her strength has come because she has been strong for her family. At the launch of the book, it was clear to see just how much of a success Hilda’s life has been, not just in the strength and contribution of the woman who has given so much back to her country, but in her wonderful and living legacy of children and grandchildren. Hilda said:
As everyone who knows Aunty Hilda knows, Australia Day is also her birthday. This was the birthday ‘given’ to her by those who took her away from her family and who had to assign her a birth date. Hilda is never bitter, but she does not describe any birthday celebrations or gifts that she received as a child. The birth date alone was given to her, a birthday for a true Australian.
Hilda’s story is one of hope, courage and optimism; of battling against the odds and winning; and letting all of us win because she has let us share a part of her extraordinary life. I urge all my friends and colleagues across both sides of the Chamber to read this wonderful book by an extraordinary woman. It is the story of a true Territorian and also a woman that I am proud to call a friend.
I would also like to talk about a wonderful exhibition of ceramics, Turning Japanese, by Cecily Willis. I attended the opening on Friday evening, 23 January at Territory Craft and Bullocky Point. The exhibition, Turning Japanese, was the culmination of a six-month program as Artist in Residence at Territory Craft. The Artist in Resident program has been running at Territory Craft for more than 20 years. The residency supports local artists by providing fully equipped workshop space at no cost to them. The aim of the program is to provide an opportunity for artists to work on their craft full-time and to develop professional marketing of their work.
Cecily has lived and worked in the Territory for the past 23 years, both in the bush and in the town. She was, for 14 years, educator at Maningrida Community Education Centre, and is currently on a year’s long service leave from the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and has clearly made the most of her time as an Artist in Residence. The exhibition represents six months work concentrating on earthenware vessels. The craft reflected a strong Japanese influence and included sushi dishes, Japanese-style teapots and tea cups, chopstick holders and blossom jars, among many other things.
I thank Leonie McNally, the executive director of Territory Craft, and Jon Firth, Chair of the Territory Craft Committee, for all the terrific work they do at Territory Craft, and especially with the Artist in Residence program. Congratulations to Cecily Willis for the wonderful exhibition and the enormous contribution she and other Territory artists give to us all through their commitment and vision. One thing that was quite extraordinary about Cecily’s exhibition was that it mostly sold out on that night.
I also had the pleasure last week to officially launch an outstanding project with major benefits for our community - the St John Ambulance ‘Project Heartstart Australia’. This program involves the purchase and distribution of around 60 public access defibrillators - otherwise known as PADs - across the country over the next year.
Sudden cardiac arrest is the most common mode of death in our country. Much to my surprise and I am sure to many others, sudden cardiac arrest claims the lives of 30 000 Australians every year. Such an arrest can happen anywhere to anyone - young or old, man or woman – and often without warning. About 75% of arrests occur away from hospitals and the survival rate for such incidents is just 5%. When someone collapses in a public place as a result of an arrest, immediate action is required because time is of the essence. Lives can be saved, however, if we follow what St John calls ‘a chain of survival’. The chain starts with people simply recognising that a person has had an arrest and then calling for an ambulance. The next step is someone carrying out mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and cardiac compression. The next in the chain – and this is where the project comes in - is the application of a PAD or public access defibrillator. The final link is the arrival of ambulance officers to deliver advance care and transport the cardiac arrest victim to hospital.
St John believes defibrillation is the only real chance people will have of surviving an arrest outside hospital. They know that every minute defibrillation is delayed, a person loses 10% of his or her chance to live. If 10 minutes passes without action, there is virtually no chance at all. Unfortunately, we all accept that we cannot have PADs everywhere. However, if we can make them readily available in as many public places as possible, they will have the potential to make a tangible difference to survival rates. Therefore, with the generous support of Insurance Australia Group represented in the Territory by CGU Insurance, St John has instigated Project Heartstart Australia. Thanks to the project, it has planned that the first three units will be located here in Parliament House, one at the Nightcliff Shopping Centre, and one at Uluru. I am very impressed with the scale of the project. I commend St John for working closely with sponsors, the health sectors, and the ‘hosts’ of these vital machines.
At the launch, I was able to see a demonstration of the use of these PADs. The machine directs the member of public through very clear step-by-step messages on how to apply and use the defibrillators. Literally so simple, this machine will be able to be used by even children who are in the frightening position of witnessing the sudden cardiac arrest of a loved one.
St John continues to play a major role in educating our community with the messages of health and safety. Their first aid courses are available to businesses, schools and individuals. Attendees learn the value of first aid, and the skills needed to apply primary assistance in emergency situations. I pass on my thanks and thanks of all Territorians to St John, the officers and all the volunteers, who so generously give of their time and energy to support public events and activities in the Territory.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to give a report of my overseas trip taken in accordance with the Remuneration Tribunal Determination that applies to members of parliament. Whilst there is no specific guide as to how detailed a report is supposed to be, what I propose to do is talk about some of the aspects of information I gleaned from the trip tonight, over the course of weeks or months or if not, leading up to the election. There will be a number of other initiatives and ideas which I picked up from overseas which may make its way into some of the planks and policies of this government.
There is no doubt that democracy is constantly subject to the strings, slings and arrows of political expediency. There is no doubt that weak politicians on both sides of any political divide have a tendency to trump what would have been good for our community with politics. There are many examples of that in Europe, and indeed, closer to home. Territorians have seen the Martin Labor government do exactly that: that is abuse the fundamental trust which has been placed in a government by the people.
As a young man, born in the Northern Territory, an indigenous person - that is me, born here - and having the opportunity to travel to Europe for the first time, it was a privilege, and of course on to America, I took the opportunity to have a close look at first-hand at some of the old democracies of the world, and took that privilege to try to broaden my mind to how people live, some of the problems that exist over there, and for what it is worth, bring back some of that information to our home in the Northern Territory. Unlike the Labor Chief Minister, the member for Fannie Bay, whom I understand traveled to Greece twice in under three years, I did my best to visit as many places as possible, and to learn from some of the mistakes they have made and try to get a clearer picture of what we are doing and where we are going, and what I can do to hopefully make a difference.
In London, I had several meetings with businessmen and women, and the chairman of, I think I have this right, the Guild of World Traders. It had a particularly long title but I am pretty sure it is the name of his organisation. Anyway, he was the chairman, and he was also a senior partner of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a large international firm of accountants. He was actually offered the job of Auditor-General of Great Britain but he knocked it back, telling me that the private sector pays better. He talked about world trade, and it was amazing. I actually spent a day and a half with him. He has a villa in the countryside and he invited Vanessa and I to spend a day with him. He talked about world trade and he talked about exporting low-tech labour intensive jobs to Third World countries and developing countries. He attempted to persuade me that that would keep a western democracy’s inflation down, and it would force jobs and industry markets in that country, like Australia, to move into the more high-tech areas. He explained in detail why the UK economy was doing so well and why France and Germany were really floundering.
There was an issue he spoke about. In Germany, there is a situation which there has been some publicity about in Australia. We talk about the ageing population. Before I left, I remember reading that there were some concerns that with the ageing population in 20 years to 30 years time, whilst currently there are four million active, productive taxpayers supporting about two million people who have worked hard all their lives and are receiving superannuation and other benefits, in 20 years or 30 years time, that is going to change. There are going to be two million working middle aged people supporting about four million seniors.
In Germany it seems there is political uproar at the moment. There was a headline which I actually took out of the paper. This young man received a lot of publicity. He is a young man and it seems that he is heading down the road to a political career, but he talked about quite disturbing things: old people were soaking up Germany’s financial resources with lavish pensions and gold plated healthcare plans. Such largesse, he said, came at the expense of young Germans, whom he warned would be strangled by the burden of supporting an ever larger population of retirees. This person was travelling around Germany and articulating his political views and was getting an enormous amount of air play, support and it was a real concern.
From Australia’s perspective, we really have to start looking at ways and mechanisms to prevent this type of reaction from possibly the next generation of Australians who feel that they have been lumbered with the cost of supporting people like me and I suspect most of the people in this Chamber.
I then travelled to Spain. It was my next port of call where I met up with another group of business people and a representative from the Bank of New York. He actually flew to Barcelona to meet me. He is a friend of mine, a bloke I have known for some time and is always full of great ideas. I know I only have 15 minutes, but his view on the world and where Australia should be going would take hours to articulate to honourable members. I am sure they will find it fascinating. I suspect most of it will go over the heads of members opposite.
I went on a fantastic coastal tour of the north-west region of Spain, finishing at a place called San Sebastin. I specifically went to a number of coastal areas that were once mangroves. There seems little doubt that as our population grows, the coastal areas of the Northern Territory will be subject to incredible and intense pressure. Mangrove preservation simply is not an issue on the political landscape in Spain. There are just so many people, if they can build on it, they will and they do it well. I am firmly of the view that we have to do a little better than that to preserve our natural heritage, our environment, not only, of course - and it has been said by members of both sides of the House - for the current generation but for future generations of Territorians.
One of the solutions that one of the people I was travelling with proffered to me was that if they could do things again, they would clearly delineate the line between what is a park in terms of mangroves and the foreshore and what is capable of being developed. This is exactly what we are doing here. He did not know what the Territory situation was. We have this zoning of Open Conservation and the powers under the Planning Act mean that the minister, when he is besieged by developers, all with visionary wealth-creating projects, ‘Just that tiny bit of foreshore’, and they just want to do this, which the government of the day will think that is pretty good, I will get a few votes if I can get this big project up. Of course, they do. These good-hearted developers put pressure on the political party of the day and that political party buckles to that pressure.
The lesson was - for what it is worth – is draw a line in the sand now and create some certainty because, if you do not what happens in Spain is what will happen here. I see the member for Karama is agreeing with me.
Ms Lawrie: No, I am not. No, I am bewildered by your ignorance. There is a harbour plan of management out.
Mr Wood: Okay, that is not protecting anything. That is a book.
Mr MALEY: It is disturbing that the member for Karama has no grasp of this and is not interested in listening to what is happening in other places.
The lesson was, I suppose, for someone objectively looking at what has happened in that particular part of the Iberian Peninsula was: develop it or protect it properly. However, any of these measures where ‘Oh well, we have to be flexible and it is subject to the ministerial consent overriding the particular zoning ultimately will not protect you. But it is your Northern Territory, you do what you think fit’.
Anyway, the other thing which seemed fairly obvious and what we are missing in the Northern Territory is some sort of coastal road network. It seems that was one of the first things, from an infrastructure perspective, that many of the countries in Europe have done. Granted, of course, that populations are larger but, from a government capital expenditure perspective, these large coastal roads were a priority. Then from those, of course, other small industries began to flourish.
There are a number of other good ideas and things which I will just save for another time. Ultimately there are some great ideas which I hope I can persuade my colleagues to incorporate into the new vision for the Territory which the CLP will offer to the people of the Territory just prior to the next election.
I then travelled to the United States. I went to the International Game Fishing Association’s home in Miami, Florida. We were on our way from Fort Lauderdale to Key West and we stopped there. By this stage, Vanessa and I both had dreadful colds. We were a bit crook, so we were happy to divert our plan. We were originally scheduled to go to Denver then Florida, and we stayed there for a few days before going to Mexico. I have a whole heap of material for those who are interested in the International Game Fishing Association. Probably most importantly, their education and youth program guide, Conservation for Education with a whole raft of really good, proactive, positive measures which politicians may not be interested in. I suspect the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory would be keen to have a look at it.
I travelled to Mexico. Aboriginal issues are something which I am acutely aware of, being a person who was born and bred here. I have said before that the indigenous Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal divide was not such a big deal in my life until coming to this place, where suddenly it is: ‘My God, you are indigenous or you are non-indigenous’. The whole terminology has, I suppose, opened my eyes a little more to it the way that people like the members of the Labor Party - particularly those members of the Labor Party from down south - view us. However, I went there to see black, white, coloured - all these divides which the Labor Party constantly go on about. What happened in Mexico is that there were an indigenous people and then the Spanish came. There are a lot more numbers but there is industry and things happening. It is a third world country, but they have gone through many of the aches and pains which the Northern Territory is constantly going through, and is currently going through.
I had an opportunity to meet a number of people. To cut a long story short, it seems that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act really is a blight on the Northern Territory and it damages the very people it strives to protect. No people on earth have ever flourished economically or socially without a secure land tenure system. I am simply not prepared to sit by and watch a group of Territorians, many of whom are my friends from Taminmin High School, get annihilated both economically and socially by this damaging system. I am going to become a little more proactive on this issue and I have some wonderful ideas from Mexico. I sat down with a group of indigenous people, people of Mayan descent and also some people who said they were of, I cannot remember the term, but effectively Inca - the Spanish term sounds a lot better and rolls off the tongue. I explained to them the situation and they said the message is really this, to our Aboriginal people, if you are going to put people in different categories: people must take responsibility for everything that occurs in their lives, blame nobody but yourself, get on with it. You should not put people in different categories, and you should not put people in a situation where they cannot have secure land tenure and they cannot buy and sell ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member’s time has expired.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, you time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to welcome to the area of Karama and Malak some very kind hearted, worthy people whom I believe will be amongst the leaders in our community. I welcome Bruce and Julie Southwell.
Bruce Southwell has been commissioned as the new rector at St James Anglican Church. On 30 January, I had the honour of attending the evening church service at St James to witness the commissioning of Bruce Southwell who has volunteered to come here from Sydney. Bruce and I have met and discussed just what type of community he has entered into. He is a terrific theologian who is very interested in multiculturalism, and I believe very much will suit the community of Karama and Malak. He has shown an interest in extending outside the church walls and doing some very good pastoral care throughout the community. I know that there is a great deal of anticipation about the leadership he will provide to the Anglican members of our community.
They have been looking forward to a permanent rector for some years now, given that the position was vacant and very ably filled on a rotational basis by priests of the Anglican faith who have other parishes. It was a very lovely and moving service that I witnessed of commissioning the new rector, which was overseen by Bishop Philip Freier. There was a very large congregation there that evening and I had the opportunity after the formalities to share some good conversations with many members of the St James Anglican community, and they are very hard working and committed members of our community. I look forward to working with Mr Southwell and his lovely wife, Julie, in the pastoral care of members of Karama and Malak.
I also rise this evening to discuss the really enjoyable launch held by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory at the Leanyer Recreation Park on Australia Day. I estimate a few thousand people attended Leanyer Recreation Park that day and it was an absolutely brilliant occasion. It was heartening to see so many families from all backgrounds from throughout Darwin and Palmerston attending this new recreation facility. The feedback that I was receiving was that it was what Darwin and Palmerston residents needed. I would have to say that the comment has been that people want to see one in Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. It is terrific to see the establishment of a water recreation park and to really put to bed the doubters who said it could not happen and that it would not be a success. As chair of the taskforce, who saw the project through its various stages, I acknowledge the input that was provided by the community-based taskforce.
I acknowledge the work done by my colleague, the member for Sanderson. He put a great deal of effort into canvassing opinions and discussing with people in his electorate of Sanderson just what sort of recreation facility they would like to see. I know that, as a parent, he had a very good view on the needs of families and very actively participated in the taskforce. I acknowledge the work of Mr Henry Gray, the principal of Leanyer of Primary School. He is a well known member of the community and was able to discuss with parents, as well as children, the views they held about what type of facility they would like to see. Henry was a very fine participant in task force meetings.
We had a young representative on the task force, a teenager, Tyce Clee, who at the time was at Sanderson High School. This year he is doing matriculation at Casuarina Senior College. It was a wonderful experience to see Tyce grow in confidence, and as each meeting of the task force went on, really increase the input he provided into expressing the views of youth about what sort of facilities they wanted. Also in that vein, I acknowledge the good work done by Ben Hall, who represented the skate boarders from the Darwin Skate Boarders Association. Ben is a very forthright young man and had very clear views on what sorts of needs the skate boarders had. I acknowledge that the additional skate park facilities down there are due largely to the excellent efforts of Ben Hall.
No task force would have been complete without the input of the Royal Lifesaving Society, particularly when it comes to water-based recreation. I acknowledge the very fine work provided by Sue Parry and Kath Midgely, who were not only able to point out the various safety aspects that we had to consider, but also some of the practical use that such a water park could afford.
It was really a wonderful moment to be standing there at the Australia Day function next to Sue as we looked around, and there were thousands of people there. Sue had a broad smile on her face and said that it was a fantastic facility. She had gone around, as thorough as we know Sue Parry is, and checked exactly how the life guards were operating, where the life guards were positioned, what sort of facilities were available, and indeed, Parks and Wildlife had commissioned from her an audit of the facility just to check the fine details to make sure it was up to scratch. I can report that that audit was a very positive response and feedback to the department.
I also acknowledge the input provided by Kidsafe NT. Their representatives were Felicity Creed and Saskia Strange. They both reiterated time and time again at the task force level that there is no point in creating a recreational facility that is one dimensional, that is that there is only one activity, and the final plans that were put to the department really echoed their sentiment. There were a range of activities proposed from the water park facilities through to the roller blade and walking/cycling track, the basketball/netball court, the add-on skateboard, and the all-abilities playground. It really was about creating a variety of activities for a variety of demographic groups. I thank them for their wisdom. I also thank particularly Saskia Strange for the input she provided in identifying what sorts of equipment is appropriate for the all-abilities playground. She was very useful in that process in terms of being able to say, ‘Look, avoid this sort of equipment even though it is available by suppliers, for these reasons’. She really provided a great deal of advice in that respect.
Darwin City Council aldermen showed interest and at various stages participated in the task force. I acknowledge the efforts provided by Jo Sangster, Cecil Black, and John Bailey.
No project like this could have succeeded without the tremendous effort of the staff of the department involved. I thank in particular Dave West from Parks and Wildlife, who showed absolute professionalism and clarity of advice right throughout the process as well as a capacity for a lot of hard work. Jaqui Hindmarsh was, at the outset, quite a quiet participant. She blossomed in the task force role and became a very valuable member. Roland did some tremendous designs in terms of the way the concept would look and I acknowledge the great work that Roland from Parks and Wildlife did as well.
Seeing it through the construction phase was the Project Manager, Lyle Campbell, from DIPE. Lyle has a tremendous energy and drive and took on an almost impossible task in terms of time frame to deliver the project. It was an enormous project, but he managed to break it down into enough components to ensure that a good number of tenders went out to local business. He really drove home the government’s intention of delivering every opportunity to local businesses to pick up contracts in the construction project. He was ably assisted by Lindsay Moncrieth from GH & D Design. Watching those two professionals work was truly inspirational, and I thank them for their incredible dedication to the project and to delivering it through every facet.
At the end of the project, of course, came technical aspects of ensuring that its launch was successful, and the promotion was there. I acknowledge the work done by the PR women, Karen and Hilary. On the day, I lost count of the hundreds of balloons we blew up and tied up together, and handed out to the very willing children.
PCYC, the Police Citizens Youth Club, stepped in and put their hand up to run the kiosk. They are making a very tidy profit in running that very popular kiosk. I acknowledge the work done by the PCYC volunteers to step up like that and seize the opportunity to make money for a very worthy organisation.
None of this would have been possible without the support and the vision of the Chief Minister. I acknowledge that and thank her very much for the incredible support she has provided right throughout the process, from its vision and inception in opposition through to delivery of a wonderful facility that we have now. I acknowledge the fantastic efforts of the then minister Kon Vatskalis. At no stage did he say no. He was very open to the project. He was open to the community-based task force way of approaching it. He showed selflessness as a minister in being able to hand over a very rewarding project to a community process. I acknowledge the effort and energy that he put in as minister to ensuring the project’s success.
I acknowledge support from minister Henderson as well. Again, he showed a great deal of support for the project. At every stage, whenever we needed to consider aspects of its expansion, he was a very supportive minister. I also acknowledge the current minister, minister Burns. He has been very hands-on since taking over the portfolio in ensuring that all facilities are functioning well. There is a really good plan of management in place. The feedback I have been getting from residents I have spoken to at the park - because I confess I am also a consumer. I go there with my children and sit in the shallows of the water area and watch them play with delight - so I have the opportunity regularly to canvass people who are there and check their views on it. People have said that they are very pleased to see what a well managed, well supervised and very clean and friendly facility it is.
An incredible number of people go there. On some occasions, there could be 400 people in one day going through that facility. It is quite interesting to see that the supervision provided by both the Parks and Wildlife rangers, as well as that provided by the lifesavers, is having the effect of making sure that it is a friendly, safe, family environment that people of all ages can enjoy. It is wonderful to see the indigenous Territorian families playing alongside the non-indigenous Territorian families, the African kids who have come and settled in our community, and the Asian families who are now very much a part of the Territory demographic. They are all there and it truly is a very multicultural facility. It is very much a credit to the Martin Labor government.
It was a project that some people thought was not worthwhile. There have been comments from the opposition denigrating it. I encourage members opposite to go to the facility and have a look. In speaking to police, they say that there were fewer problems from youth in the northern suburbs of Darwin throughout the school holiday period. I have to say, as the member for Karama, I noticed the Karama Shopping Centre was incredibly quiet for a school holiday period. If you went to that facility, the kids were playing and behaving themselves. It really goes to show the wisdom of the saying: if you keep the kids active, they will pretty well keep out of trouble.
It is great to see that the Youth Beat youth workers are getting there and mingling with the kids, just as we have had tremendous support from the bicycle patrol police who get down there and mingle and talk with local residents. It truly is a fully integrated community facility. I know it has a very promising future. I congratulate everyone for the hard work and the great deal of effort they put in to make sure that this project was completed in time for parents and families to enjoy it throughout the school holidays - some would say too long school holiday period, but they knew their kids were certainly enjoying themselves and having a lot of fun.
I certainly hope that it will be one of those facilities that continues to improve over time with further injection of facilities into there. It has a scope for expansion and improvement and I know the community is looking forward to seeing it grow and become even better. Certainly the feedback I have received has been overwhelming, people love it.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wanted to raise tonight an issue that should be considered important by all members of the Chamber. It centres around a headline that appeared in the Northern Territory News yesterday. No doubt all members are aware of it; the headline reads: Underage girls sterilised, implants to stop teen pregnancies. The headline is alarming but I would like to assure members that I have made some phone calls, I made some inquiries, and on the advice that I have received, it is fair to say that the headline does not accurately describe the situation. It has been suggested to me that the headline was a little misleading.
Nevertheless, the story is an alarming one and it is appropriate that I raise my concerns in the Chamber tonight, especially in light of the fact that we have had one or two, depending on your interpretation, health statements from two health ministers. It is also appropriate that at this juncture I touch upon some of the matters mentioned by both health ministers so that the points that I propose to make in relation to the article in the Northern Territory News has some sort of relevant and meaningful context.
I note that the Minister for Health said that he will, as minister, strengthen families and communities. He said, and I quote:
He mentions the importance of treating sexually transmitted diseases which he admits is an area that requires:
… sustained attention over the next few years.
I note that the Minister for Family and Community Services in her speech referred to, amongst many other things, the redrafting of the Community Welfare Act, a bill I might say that I am looking forward to very much. I simply ask that the new minister, like her predecessor, note my special interest in this area. The new minister referred to the need to protect our children. Few of us would argue that that should be a top priority for all governments.
It is against that backdrop that I now return to the story in the Northern Territory News. I wondered why it was, when I was reading the statements of both health ministers, that neither minister used the opportunity to comment on this story, and in addition, I wondered why it was that there was no ministerial report on the matter. I was rather hoping that there might be a government question and answer in Question Time about the issues raised in that story. I was disappointed that this serious issue has not been mentioned by anyone in this parliament today, certainly given the currency of the story and the fact that it appeared yesterday. One could be forgiven for thinking that this issue is not considered serious enough to warrant any comment by anyone in this Chamber and in particular from government, further, and more particularly, two new government health ministers.
Having said that however, I do feel as though the new Minister for Family and Community Services does have an interest in, and a commitment to, issues involving young women, both in indigenous and non-indigenous. I would like to think and rather hope that she is concerned about this story in much the same way that I am. I flag now that I would like a briefing with the minister and departmental staff so that I can be informed on government’s position on this matter. Let us be clear what the issue is: the issue is young girls, 14 and 15 years, and probably even younger, undergoing a medical procedure, namely an Implanon implant, often without their parent’s consent. As I understand it, it is a small rod that is inserted into the girl’s arm. Therefore, it is a medical procedure. Some, of course, will argue that this is merely a form of contraception, and like the contraceptive pill, should be provided to young girls who often do not want their parents to know that they are sexually active. There is, however, another view and that is it is a medical procedure and parental consent should be obtained. No doubt, some would argue that the provision of this device is a good thing, simply because it is a contraceptive device and that young women in particular should be encouraged to avail themselves of it. However, in the case of this particular device, questions do arise about what the lesser evil is.
I raise in particular the question of the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Presumably this device promotes safe sex for girls on the basis that they will not get pregnant. What about STDs? I would like to know what the minister’s view is, certainly both ministers, in particular the Minister for Family and Community Services. I would like to know what does government, or the minister, think about young girls having this medical procedure without their parent’s consent. I also would like to know whether there are any protocols in existence to assist health workers to balance what might be described as often competing interests about the rights of young people on the one hand to be sexually active, and then on the other for adults to have some say, especially when they are very young and under age, in how these girls can conduct their lives especially when it comes to health issues.
There was a reference in the story to a grandmother who took two of her grandchildren to a doctor and told the doctor to put in this device, because, and I quote from the story: ‘… otherwise they’ll be pregnant before too long’. I ask the question, by what authority can the grandmother give those instructions to the doctor and whether the minister thinks this is reasonable? Only a couple of months ago, members will recall that we were in this Chamber talking about, amongst other things, human rights, the matter not regarded as terribly important by the member for Nelson, but I digress. I wonder what the minister thinks about this issue and the details of this story from the human rights perspective, and the ability of the child to consent to a medical treatment or medical procedure. The minister talked about the rights of the child in the context of the Community Welfare Act and I ask the question, can a child give, in this case, her consent, and where are the rights of the child on this matter? I am compelled to ask whether the minister is concerned about what I would suggest is a very real possibility of some of those under age girls, not just having sex with boys of their own age, but in particular much older boys and, in some cases, men.
I invite the minister to provide a statement, or perhaps a ministerial report on this issue, or perhaps even have a question asked and answered during the course of the sittings. I am well aware that some of these issues are very sensitive. I have simply raised them. I make no judgment about any of them, and I do not give, at this stage, a particular point of view. I would certainly like more information. It is very important and I would especially like to know what the minister’s view is on some of these very important issues, and indeed what some of the responses would be. If after the conclusion of these sittings, no statement of any form is provided, I will seek a briefing.
However, I would hope that during this sittings the issue is raised by government and the minister. I raise these issues for the consideration of the minister and I also raise these issues because I think I should. These issues should be raised. Whilst the heading in the NT News I am told was misleading, the fact is that there are issues in this story that are concerning. The issues are sensitive, and a sensible response needs to be taken to them. I am very concerned that no one in government raised this matter during the course of today, and I respectfully ask the government to do so over the next week-and-a-half.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am not sure why the member for Araluen mentioned my name. I actually think that the issue she has raised is an important issue. It is a pity that some of us could not speak on the debate because we limited the number of speakers. The issue she has raised is important. I support her asking for answers from the government on those important issues. I also have some concerns about some of the issues on page 3, the morning after pill. I have spoken to a person representing the AMA who definitely has concerns about the handing out of that pill without doctors’ prescriptions. It is an important issue. However, I am not going to speak on that tonight.
I am speaking on something completely different and that is bottled water, which is a long way away from that previous subject. Its other heading is ‘Why get something free when I can pay for it?’ This evening I talk about a growing environment problem that the Northern Territory government and community appear to be ignoring, and that is bottled water. When did water go from being an essential to human life to a commercial beverage? Bottled water is one of the fastest growing sectors of the beverage industry, and what a con it has been for most of us: getting us to pay up to $3 a litre - that is more than three times the cost of petrol - for something that we can get for nothing out of a tap. In Alice Springs, there is a company bottling the town’s water out of a tap and selling it back to the Alice Springs consumer.
I have been spurred on to say something about the subject by a report from the Chief Minister in the sittings last August, on the BassintheGrass concerts. She told the Legislative Assembly that Coca-Cola had provided 14 000 free bottles of bottled water for these two concerts. I supported those concerts but I do not support that aspect of it. Why should a government fund a concert for young people to promote consumerism and waste? What happened to those 14 000 empty containers? They certainly were not collected and redeemed at collection depots, because we do not have container deposit legislation. Did anyone in Darwin collect them and take them to Waste Masters, or are they all in landfill at the Shoal Bay Dump? Did the government insist that Coca-Cola take away the empty containers and see that they were recycled as part of its new litter abatement recycling program? Or were these 14 000 empty bottles left to the community to deal with, as usual?
Over the past 100 years, the Australian taxpayer has funded an efficient infrastructure to collect, purify and deliver water to our houses, workplaces and parks. Each of us, and our parents and grandparents, have paid for that efficient and effective water delivery system. Yet marketers have convinced us to buy water in bottles, an extremely inefficient and expensive delivery system that adds to an already huge litter problem. Companies are using a free resource that belongs to all people and making money out of it. It is a great business idea, isn’t it? We are mug consumers. Coca-Cola pays a New South Wales utility $1.34 a megalitre for its spring water. That is $1.34 for a million litres of water, and we pay $1.34 for less than one litre. It is a business that should not be encouraged in Australia unless the hundreds of thousands of plastic bottles are recycled.
What is the problem? Originally, water was bottled by companies promoting the beneficial properties of minerals and spring water, and that has been going on for decades. Now its growth appears to be linked to a push towards healthier consumption: drinking bottled water instead of sugar-based soft drinks or fattening flavoured milk. No one is arguing that water is not good for you or, if it is not actually good for you, it does no harm. However, why are we paying for it in bottles? Some people might claim that the bottled water is cleaner and more pure than tap water, but what proof do we have of this? In fact, bottled water may be less clean than tap water because it is not regulated and tested in a way that tap water is by utilities such as the Power and Water Corporation. Bottled water is not regulated but tap water is. The Australian drinking water guidelines do not apply to bottled water. There is a voluntary code for the production of bottled water, nothing mandatory.
Other people might like its convenience, and here I concede they have a point. However, there has been a lack of action from local government councils and government. Where are the bubblers? How long is it since local governments installed new bubblers? If you go to the malls in Darwin or Alice Springs, can you get free water from conveniently placed bubblers or taps? I should also say how many times have you seen a bubbler in a shopping centre? They remove them or they put them in such a place you cannot find them. Of course, that is done on purpose to make you buy bottled water.
So, what are the trends? Recently, the environment magazine, emagazine, did a feature on bottled water in the United States, and I am sure that all the trends identified in that article will emerge here. There are pubs and bars where you cannot get or drink tap water. You have to buy bottled water. There are now bottled water bars. Water varieties are grouped. There is spring, mineral, purified, distilled, carbonated, oxygenated, caffeinated, vitamin rich, lemon water, sports waters, and fitness water. Forty per cent of bottled water begins life as tap water. In taste tests consumers cannot tell the difference between tap and bottled water. Bottled water is unregulated. Tap water has to be tested. Several studies have found contaminants including arsenic and chlorine, lead and fluoride. Consumers are being taken in by words such as pure, pristine, natural, healthy, and brand names such as ‘Everest’ which is bottled in Texas. There is no proof that bottled water is safer or cleaner or healthier.
Another problem is that Australian doctors have predicted the trend towards bottled water will reverse the good done by fluorination of water during the past three decades. They are predicting a possible decline in dental health in Australia. In April this year, Choice Magazine said that bottled water is often treated by a process called ozonation which kills any lurking bacteria, but it quotes a recent preliminary study which found that ozonation can leave traces of bromate which can cause negative side effects from nausea and diarrhoea to kidney failure. There is no limit in Australia on the amount of bromate which can appear in bottled water.
The size of the problem: the bottled water industry is worth $US35bn a year world wide. It is growing 10% a year and, in May 2002, the polling company, AC Nielsen, found that in the Asia Pacific region, which includes Australia, bottled water was the single fastest growing product of all food and beverage categories. It is estimated that Australia spends $300m a year on bottled water. In the United States, the Container Recycling Institute, a non-profit group which studies container sales and recycling trends, has found that the plastic bottle has tripled in the past eight years, and a good part of that waste has been from bottled water containers. There is no reason to believe that this trend will be any different in Australia.
A worrying trend in the US has been the decline in recycling rates for PET plastic bottles in states that have no container deposits. In 1995, almost 40% of PET containers were recycled. In 2002, the rate was down to 20%. This must mean that collectors are not getting enough money per kilogram for delivering used bottles to recycling plants and when this happens, you have two options: introduce CDL or reduce the number of bottles. One way of reducing the number of empties would be discouraging the consumption of bottled water.
Consumerism and marketing gone made: as one recent editorial said, ‘We are urged to buy one liquid we cannot live without from private companies which dress up bottles with pretty nature scenes to contradict the true environmental impact of their enterprise’. Look at the names: Deep Spring, Marble Hill, Mt Lofty, Mt Franklin, Peaks Ridge, King Island and Misty Mountain. I could probably name a couple of others around our way. The names suggest clean and clear, but look closely at the labels on some of them. Deep Spring Natural Mineral Water is bottled by Coca-Cola. The label does not say where the spring is or where the water comes from. The Territory’s own distilled water is bottled in the suburbs of Darwin. There is no claim to it being spring water, so I presume it is tap water that has been treated with ultraviolet light. Tumbling Waters water comes from Berry Springs out of a bore, and I think Litchfield Springs comes from the old police horse paddock on the corner of the Stuart Highway and Tivendale Road.
The K9 water company from California sells bottled water for dogs – yes, water fortified with vitamins and flavoured with beef, liver, chicken or lamb. Recently, an Australian entrepreneur introduced flavoured water for the dogs of Sydney.
A litre of bottled water from the supermarket can cost more than a dollar. It cost less than 0.1 of 1% to fill a litre bottle at the kitchen tap. The bottled water is a thousand times more expensive than tap water. People cannot live without water and in the past it has kept us alive for virtually nothing. But now, if you insist on bottled water and you want to drink it all the time, it will cost you up to $8 a day for the recommended daily intake. It is an expensive fad. If there is a case for bottling water, surely it should be bottled water for people in developing countries who have no access to safe drinking water.
In most cases, bottled water is a waste of money and the bottles damage the environment. Fuel is wasted in transporting bottles of water around the country and providing power to the bottling plants. The manufacturer of PET bottles generates toxic emissions. The PET bottle that is not recycled takes 1000 years to biodegrade. The beverage industry is making a profit and a litter problem out of bottling something in Australia that costs almost nothing.
I ask the Chief Minister and the government to consider this concept, that the beverage industry is only making a profit and creating a large litter problem, before they support free bottled water at the next function. Certainly, it is a great alternative to alcohol and soft drink, but people should be encouraged to drink free tap water. What we need is more bubblers or a water truck with recyclable cups.
In summary, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, one could ask: what are the arguments for bottled water? It is healthy, it is safe, it is pure – and that can be arguable – it is a good alternative to alcohol and sugar laden soft drinks, it is convenient and portable and it is fashionable. I would say that is a pretty major reason why a lot of people drink bottled water.
But why not use bottled water? It is outrageously expensive because water is almost free from the tap. The containers are a major litter and resource use problem and Australia has some of the best drinking water out of the tap in the world with few additives. You would have to say that Darwin’s water, and that has been recognised, and some of the water in the Top End is recognised as the best water in Australia.
One has to ask: are we being conned and are we just creating a bigger litter problem? If the government accepts the free market then perhaps it accepts responsibility for the amount of litter that these bottles are producing and it starts to put some real effort into thinking about the introduction of container deposit legislation.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to advise the Assembly of the retirement of Mrs Kay Pisani, an A04 Program Coordinator, Entry Levels Programs Unit with Recruitment Services, who retired from the Northern Territory Public Service on Friday, 6 February 2004 after 16 years and four months service.
Mrs Pisani joined the Northern Territory Public Sector as a keyboard operator on 14 September 1987 with the Department of Mines and Energy in Alice Springs and was permanently appointed on 18 January 1988. In October 1989, she transferred to Darwin. In December 1989, Kay began a career in Recruitment with the Department of Mines and Energy and in March 1994 was promoted to Recruitment Officer within the same department. During her time with Mines and Energy, Kay began her interest in the apprenticeship program, an area in which she continued until her retirement.
In 1998, Kay transferred to the Department of Transport and Works where she was responsible for overseeing 12 apprentices and then transferred to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, where the unit was responsible for the management of some 170 apprentices across the service.
In April 2002, the Early Careers Unit and Kay transferred to DCIS where Kay’s wealth of experience and intimate knowledge of the apprenticeship program and all apprenticeships was greatly valued by DCIS. Kay’s dedication to the apprenticeship program is a credit to her and her knowledge in this area will be sorely missed.
I understand that a plaque to acknowledge her service was presented to Mrs Pisani at the apprenticeship graduation ceremony on 4 February 2004. I also understand a small workplace farewell function was held at the Darwin Plaza on 6 February 2004, and that everyone thoroughly enjoyed themselves. Mrs Kay Pisani will be sorely missed.
I would now like to congratulate the AFL/NTFL and the Minister for Sport and Recreation, the Honourable John Ah Kit. The recent game held between the Western Bulldogs and the NTFL Representatives was a fantastic spectacle for all those who attended. It was a typical Wet Season night, balmy, with rain coming down in buckets. However, it was still well attended, with 7000 Territorians attending, just going to show that the most popular sport still to this day and in the past and no doubt into the future, is Australian Rules Football. I recognise the NTFL representative team coached by Damian Hale, the current premiership coach of the St Mary’s Football Club. Damian has been a personal friend of mine for a number of years, having played rugby league with him and against him in Aussie Rules. He has done a fantastic job at his home club, St Mary’s Football Club. I am sure Vic Ludwig and all the supporters at St Mary’s Football Club are very proud of what he has been able to achieve in a short time. He did a fantastic job of preparing the NTFL representative team.
The captain of the team was Shannon Motlop, from the well-known Territorian sporting family. The Motlops have been very successful in all sports that they put their hand to, in particular Rugby League and Australian Rules Football, Shannon also being a member of the victorious Kangaroos 1996 Premiership Team in the AFL. He has recently joined the Wanderers Football Club and is assisting them head towards, I believe, a possible grand final appearance.
Also representing the team was Iggy Vallejo, a St Mary’s Football representative, he did a fantastic job on the night; Rowan Bonson, representing the Nightcliff Football Club and also the communities around Katherine; Jarred Illet from the St Mary’s Football Club, returning from Port Adelaide; Kurt Heazlewood, a recruit to the Wanderer’s Football Club; Shannon Rusca, ex-Western Bulldogs player and Brisbane Lions’ footballer - he was representing the Nightcliff Football Club and is an outstanding footballer whom I had the opportunity and honour to get to know at the Charlie Perkins Cup held in Canberra at the end of last year. He was picked in the Indigenous All Australian team.
Ben Ah Mat, captain of the Darwin Football Club, one of the stars of the football competition, Nichols Medallist and current captain of his local football club, the Darwin Buffalos. He did a fantastic job on the night. I am sure he will please the crowds in the next 10 years or so, if not getting an opportunity to play at an AFL level. Richard Tambling is an all-Australian for his age group and I think people recognise that if he was at the appropriate age last year, he would have been drafted to the AFL. No doubt he will be playing in the AFL in years to come. Damien Zammitt, one of the senior leaders at the Darwin Football Club - I should correct myself here, I think Damian is actually the captain of the Darwin Football Club and Ben Ah Mat is the vice captain.
Peter Shepperd from the Magpies in Palmerston played a fantastic game; Warren Berto from the Nightcliff Football Club; Justin Wilson; Jason Roe from the Nightcliff Football Club, ex-Collingwood draftee as well; Corey Ah Chee returning from Port Adelaide and also representing Darwin Football Club, played a fantastic game at centre half back, centre and full back. Daniel Motlop, who actually put into his AFL contract that he be allowed to return to play for NTFL representative games, and again part of the Motlop clan.
Craig Parsons, representing St Mary’s Football Club; Tim Karpany, the Wanderers Football Club; Shannon Goldsmith, a recruit from South Australia who played a fantastic game on the night, if not the best player, also representing the Darwin Football Club. Mark Tyrell, captain/coach of the Magpies Football Club, played an outstanding game in the second half from the back line. Ben Cooke; Nick Ingall, a young up and coming probably key centre-half forward of the competition, playing for St Mary’s Football Club, premiership player. Dion Grant, Millner resident, ex-Nightcliff, current Palmerston player, an outstanding footballer in the last 10 years, comes from an outstanding football family. He is one of those people who will be able to say when he retires that he was very unlucky not to get an opportunity to play in the AFL. He has played in the last four grand finals, winning two for the Palmerston Magpies.
Balraj Singh from the Waratah Football Club; Brad Nordhausen from the Wanderers Football Club; Ian Carroll from the Waratah Football Club - he was the unfortunate lad who contested a mark in the goal square in front of me and received an elbow to the jaw, and instantaneously, unfortunately I could tell that he had done some serious damage. He had broken his jaw and we wish him the best from Parliament House, and all members hope for a speedy recovery - and Neville Clark.
These players had an opportunity to play against some fantastic footballers, and they will be able to carry these memories to the day that they die. They had an opportunity to play against players like Rohan Smith, Brad Johnson, Scott West, Matthew Croft, Adam Cooney, Chris Grant, and Patrick Bowden - a Territory boy from Alice Springs, the son of Michael Bowden; Jade Rawlins, and Steven Coops, a young local boy who has moved now from the Fremantle Dockers to the Western Bulldogs. I wish him the best and hope he has a successful career there.
It was a fantastic night. I know everyone who participated was very surprised that the crowd did turn out in force, a total of 7000, I understand. I would also like to congratulate the Southern Districts Football Club and the Darwin Football Club for holding stalls there. The Darwin footy club committee worked hard and I understand they raised quite a few thousand dollars selling yiros, soft drinks and steak sandwiches etcetera. No doubt with continued hard work, they will be able to secure the position to play in finals in coming years.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the relationship Michael McLean has had with the Western Bulldogs. As he told me, he spent the first nine years of his football career from the age, I think he said, of 17 to 26, with the Western Bulldogs. He grew up at that football club and has close ties with that football club. He was able to sit in the box with the Western Bulldogs and enjoyed watching the coaches at an AFL level ply their trade. He was able to walk around the change rooms. He offered an analysis on the football game and what he thought would be the issues for the Western Bulldogs, and he was able to stand out on the ground with the Western Bulldogs. Though away from the huddle, he was able to listen in to Peter Rohde, whom he had the opportunity to meet at the function held at Parliament House. The event was proudly sponsored by MGM Grand, in Darwin, Australia. It was a great night had by one and all. The result was fantastic. The NTFL was very unlucky; we were losing only by one point, and if the ball had bounced the ball right way, the Northern Territory would have won and continued their fantastic record in NTFL representative games.
My congratulations to all players, staff, NTFL and of course, the helpers, the water boys, the strappers, the water girls, and the physios who made the night a fantastic success.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise as I do each first night of the first day of the sittings each year, to talk about the Chinese New Year for the year. This year is the Chinese New Year of the Monkey. My daughter is 24 years of age and she was born in Year of the Monkey. The Year of the Monkey is going to be a very unpredictable year, as they say, just like the monkey, leaping from branch to branch, playing chasey or sitting immersed in its own thoughts - all very compelling. It is also quite an unpredictable young creature. I get most of my information on Chinese horoscopes from a book by Neil Somerville. I have used his books now for the last 10 years, each year I come here to talk about Chinese New Year.
Chinese New Year this year was on 22 January, and as usual, the Chinese community in Darwin celebrated the festival over the following two weeks. It involved many of the other ethnic communities in Darwin, including them in festivities. It was a good way to showcase the Chinese culture that has been so long practised in Darwin.
To be slightly different from previous years as I have presented Chinese New Year, I might describe what they would do normally over a 15-day celebration of Chinese New Year. This I found on a web site through the Victorian University in California, and I quote from it:
The Fujian people are from the province of Fujian in the southern part of China, across the ocean from the little island of Taiwan.
The ninth day of the Chinese new year festival is the day to make offerings to the Jade Emperor. The tenth through to the twelfth days are days when friends and relatives should be invited for dinner, and then after so much food and drink on those days, the thirteenth day should be a simple day with simple rice congee and mustard greens to clean the system. On the fourteenth and fifteenth days, they continue on with the celebrations, which culminate in the Lantern Festival on the night of the fifteenth.
I said that the Year of the Monkey is going to be very unpredictable, yet cheerful and energetic. Monkeys are clever, so children born in the Year of the Monkey, which is this year and every 12 years backwards, so 1992, 1980, and 1968. As they say, give a monkey a boring book to read and he will turn it into a musical. Better yet, he will probably invite everyone to see it for free. They are always alert and can feel surroundings, even as they are thoroughly engaged in conversation. They are very sociable and have a very active outside life. Monkeys sympathise with people, and they in turn trust you with their secrets. They are a good friend to have. They can forgive, but they never forget and they can be also be very vengeful if somebody wrongs them over several times.
In the Chinese zodiac they match up different animal signs, and they found that Monkeys are most compatible with a person born in the Year of the Rat, which is in four years time. Other signs that are compatible are the Dragon, the Tiger, and the Pig. People who are born in those years – I am sure they know who they are - would find people born in this year very great friends and very compatible with them.
In Chinese New Year, the Chinese also have very traditional New Year foods which they do not use at any other time of the year. It is probably also the time of the year that more food is consumed than any other time. About a month from Chinese New Year, family and friends come together and they prepare lots of cakes and biscuits which they then try to save in vacuum sealed tins and jars until New Year’s Day before they come out for sharing.
On New Year’s Day, the Chinese family will eat a vegetarian dish called jai. Although the various ingredients in jai are root vegetables or fibrous vegetables, many people attribute various superstitious aspects to them. The roots and seeds usually include lotus seeds which signify having many male offspring. The gingko nut is used and, because it looks very much like the old Chinese silver ingots used as money, the gingko nut is used to resemble wealth. Black moss seaweed is also used, and that is synonymous with having exceeding in wealth. Dried bean curd is used on Chinese New Year to represent fulfilment of wealth and happiness. Bamboo shoots are also used because the sound of the Chinese word sounds very much like wishing that everything would be well. It is important to understand that, while dried bean curd is used in Chinese New Year, fresh bean curd or tofu is not used because of its white colour. White is not a colour that you would use during Chinese New Year.
Other foods which are used include fish to represent togetherness, and chicken for prosperity. When the chicken is cooked and presented for consumption, it must always be presented with the head, tail and feet complete, to represent the wholeness of the relationship that you have with that person. Noodles that you serve should not be cut. The thin rice vermicelli noodles should be served uncut because each strand is supposed to represent the long life of the person who eats the noodles will have.
One of the things I remember as a child, was the superstitions that went on with Chinese New Year. We were all told – and probably this was just a way that my grandmother and my parents used to bluff me into helping them to do spring cleaning – a week before Chinese New Year, we all go through what you call spring cleaning of the house. The entire house is cleaned – roof and ceilings, right through to the basement. On New Year’s Eve, once the cleaning is all done, all brooms, brushes, dusters, dustpans and any other cleaning equipment must be put away out of sight. On New Year’s Day, sweeping or dusting should not be done for fear that any good fortune will be swept out of the home and away. After New Year’s Day, floors can be swept. The superstition is that the sweeping must be from the door towards the middle of the house so that you don’t sweep anything out, and the dust and rubbish will then be placed in the corners of the room and not taken out until the fifth day of Chinese New Year period. At no times should rubbish in corners be trampled upon. If you sweep and you push the dust and dirt out over the threshold then potentially you could sweep one of your family members away.
Fire crackers are very much a traditional thing you see at Chinese New Year. This is a way of making a lot of loud noises to usher the old year out and welcome in the new year, but at the same time scare away any evil spirits that might come towards your home, towards your door, towards your office, scaring and preventing any evil spirits from entering your premises so that they do not bring any ill fortune into your place.
One of the things that I observe is that you pay all your debts prior to New Year’s Day, so you start a new year owing nothing, and not being owed anything. You should not lend money prior to this day. If you lend money, or you have somebody owe you money, just over New Year’s Day then it is likely you will be forever owed money for the rest of the year. Back in the days when tinder and flint were used, Chinese people were also very loath to lend anybody a light.
Everyone should also refrain from using foul language, and bad words, and I suppose that is a very good philosophy to have. If you don’t start swearing at anybody on New Year’s Day you might not swear at anybody at all all year round and that is indeed a good way to get on with the neighbours.
On New Year’s Day too, and this applied to women more than anything else - I was asked this question last New Year’s Day, were you allowed to wash your hair? It is something that you are not allowed to do on New Year’s Day as it would wash away all the good luck you might have. You wash your head on New Year’s Eve and then on New Year’s Day you get up, you have your shower and then you wear the newest clothes that you could have. Most of us would have brand new clothes made just prior to New Year’s Day ready to be worn on the first day of the New Year. I can remember as a child putting on all brand new clothes, including brand new shoes, and then going out visiting all our relatives, getting the red packets or hong bao from them. All the married relatives would give the young ones, the unmarried kids, red packets. The more visiting you do the more relatives you meet, the more money you get for Chinese New Year. You can use the money to then buy anything you like for the next two weeks to celebrate Chinese New Year. It was great fun growing up then.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Blessing of Chamber by Chung Wah Society
Blessing of Chamber by Chung Wah Society
Madam SPEAKER: Welcome, honourable members, to the start of the 2004 parliamentary year. I place on record my thanks to the Chung Wah Society for the blessing of the Chamber. Let us hope it will be a good year.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from the Administrator Message No. 18, notifying assent to bills passed in the October and November 2003 sittings.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to Petitions No 44 and No 48 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the response will be included in the Parliamentary Record.
- Petition No 44
Allocated Police Officers in Casuarina Police District
Date Presented: 15 October 2003
Presented by: Mr Elferink
Referred to: Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services
Date response due: 31 March 2004
Date response received: 28 January 2004
Date response presented: 17 February 2004
In response to Petition No.44 where constituents requested an increased police allocation for the above district,
I am pleased to advise that on 9 October 2003, bicycle and foot patrols were re-introduced on a permanent basis
as part of a strategy of devising and implementing a problem solving, intelligence-led policing model that is
geared towards crime reduction in the northern suburbs.
This problem solving approach aims to reduce crime through targeting criminal offences and offenders, reducing
the desire to commit crime by increasing the likelihood of detection, and reducing criminal opportunities through
directed patrolling.
This process will be supported by analysing problematic areas within the northern suburbs including Karama,
Malak, Anula and Wulagi and will enable the linking of criminal behaviour to certain hot spots such as public
spaces, laneways, street intersections and semi-public spaces around other landscapes. Regardless of the time
of day or night, targeted patrolling will be conducted in these areas.
In order to effectively police these hot spots, it has been recognised that highly mobile and flexible responses
need to be adopted in order for police to gain access to areas that have limited access by conventional patrolling
means.
In line with these strategies, bicycle and foot patrols of known hot spots have re-commenced in the Casuarina
district, and will become a permanent fixture of policing in the northern suburbs. These patrols are directed
towards peak periods of criminal activity and anti-social behaviour, and have been strengthened and supported
by trail bike patrols, plain-clothes patrols, and general patrols.
To date, the patrols have led to a decrease in antisocial behaviour in some known hot spots, and have played
an important role in crime reduction and prevention in the northern suburbs.
To further support these initiatives, the Casuarina Police Station will receive an additional seven police officers
on 22 December 2003 after they graduate from the Police College. This will enable further pro-active patrols
to be established and conducted during peak periods of criminal activity and antisocial behaviour.
The Officer in Charge of the Casuarina Local Police Office, Acting Senior Sergeant Murray Taylor is available
to advise you further in relation to this initiative if required. He can be contacted directly at Casuarina on
telephone 8922 7456.
Petition No 48
Protection of the Daly River
Date Presented: 25 November 2003
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Chief Minister
Date response due: 18 May 2004
Date response received: 23 December 2003
Date response presented: 17 February 2004
Response:
- The petitioners have expressed concern about several issues relating to the Daly River region of the
Northern Territory, namely:
- On 9 November 2003, I announced the formation of the Daly Region Community Reference Group to advise me
on the formulation of an ecologically sustainable development framework for the Daly Region. This group will
undertake several tasks, as outlined in the Terms of Reference document (see Internet address at
www.ipe.nt.gov.au/whatwedo/dalyregion/refgroup) towards the development of a draft Integrated Regional Land
Use Plan for the Daly Region.
In accordance with the Terms of Reference for the Daly River Community Reference Group, the draft Integrated
Regional Land Use Plan will be framed to ensure that ecologically sustainable development is achieved in the
region and in line with the following core principles, that is there will be:
Integrated Regional Land Use Plan has been completed.
- These three principles are the result of a Cabinet Decision and reflect some of the concerns raised by the
petitioners in Petition No 48.
I would urge the petitioners to express their concerns through the community representatives who sit on the
Daly Region Community Reference Group.
Government will consider the other issues raised by the petitioners in light of the advice to be provided by the
Daly Region Community Reference Group, in the form of a draft Integrated Regional Land Use Plan for the
Daly Region.
GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I advise honourable members that on 15 December 2003, His Honour the Administrator made the following appointments of ministers of the Northern Territory:
- Clare Majella Martin: Chief Minister; Minister for Tourism; Minister for Territory Development;
Minister for the AustralAsia Railway; Minister for Indigenous Affairs; Minister for Arts and Museums;
Minister for Young Territorians; Minister for Women’s Policy; and Minister for Senior Territorians.
Sydney James Stirling: Treasurer; Minister for Employment, Education and Training; and
Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing.
- Peter Howard Toyne: Minister for Justice and Attorney-General; Minister for Health; and
Minister for Central Australia.
Paul Raymond Henderson: Minister for Business and Industry; Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services;
Minister for Defence Support; Minister for Asian Relations and Trade; Minister for Corporate and Information
Services; and Minister for Communications.
John Leonard Ah Kit: Minister for Community Development; Minister for Housing; Minister for Local Government;
Minister for Sport and Recreation; Minister for Regional Development; and Minister assisting the Chief Minister on
Indigenous Affairs.
Christopher Bruce Burns: Minister for Transport and Infrastructure; Minister for Lands and Planning; Minister for
Parks and Wildlife; and Minister for Essential Services.
Konstantine Vatskalis: Minister for Mines and Energy; Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries; and
Minister for Ethnic Affairs.
Marion Rose Scrymgour: Minister for Family and Community Services; Minister for the Environment and Heritage;
and Minister assisting the Chief Minister on Young Territorians, Women’s Policy and Senior Territorians.
The member for Wanguri will continue to fill the role of Leader of Government Business, and the member for Karama will continue as Government Whip.
I take this opportunity to note that the member for Arafura, in her role as minister assisting me on Young Territorians, Women’s Policy and Senior Territorians, will be responsible for questions without notice and written questions from members of this House where those questions relate to the portfolio areas of youth, women or seniors.
Madam Speaker, I table a copy of the Administrative Arrangements order as at 21 January 2004.
OPPOSITION OFFICE HOLDERS
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, last week I announced several changes to the shadow cabinet because of the inclusion of the member for Brennan on the front bench of the opposition. I am pleased to inform the House that the member for Brennan has taken on the shadow responsibilities of defence matters and infrastructure and planning. His inclusion has meant that a number of other changes were made to the responsibilities of other shadow ministers. I seek leave to table the full list.
Leave granted.
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Arafura, Ms Scrymgour, be discharged from the Sessional Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community, and the member for Nightcliff, Mrs Aagaard, be appointed to serve on the committee in her stead. I also advise that the member for Nightcliff will be the government’s nominee for the position of Chair of this committee.
Motion agreed to.
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Subordinate Legislation and Tabled Papers Committee
Subordinate Legislation and Tabled Papers Committee
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): I further move that the member for Arafura, Ms Scrymgour, be discharged from service on the Subordinate Legislation and Tabled Papers Committee, and the member for Nightcliff, Mrs Aagaard, be appointed in her stead.
Motion agreed to.
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community
Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Goyder, Mr Maley, be discharged from the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community, and the member for Katherine, Mrs Miller, be appointed to that committee in his place.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Review of the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Scheme
Review of the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Scheme
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide an update to the House on the review of the Legislative Assembly Members’ Superannuation Scheme, or LAMSS, as it is generally known. As honourable members will be aware, I have consistently advocated that superannuation arrangements for parliamentarians should not be out of line with the arrangements generally available to the community, and took that commitment to the last election.
In February 2002, I announced a review of LAMSS would be undertaken. Terms of reference were tabled in the Assembly in May of the same year. Ken Clarke, the former Under Treasurer, carried out the review and presented his report to my government in November 2002.
The objective of the review of the scheme was to provide for the government’s consideration options for a revised benefit structure for members of this House that will result in reduced costs for Territory taxpayers, is comparable with standards in other jurisdictions, takes into account national policies on superannuation and, very importantly, has regard to community expectations.
Members of the Legislative Assembly, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Independent members were consulted during the review. Matters considered included the Actuarial Review of 30 June 2001; the benefits and levels of the scheme including a comparison of parliamentary schemes in other jurisdictions; options for benefit design including comparisons of pension and lump sum schemes; and the extent to which a changed benefit structure could be applied to existing and future members and, in doing so, the implications for superannuation entitlements.
Public submissions were called during the review. However, only one submission was received. The time frame envisaged when the review commenced was so that new arrangements could be in place prior to the commencement of the next parliament following the general election scheduled for 2005. That time frame was set to allow analysis of the issues raised in the LAMSS review, some of which are particularly complex, and for members to have the opportunity to provide input into consideration of changes to LAMSS or the development of new arrangements.
It is important to note that we in the Territory parliament have embarked on an orderly process of reviewing our superannuation entitlements and we will continue in that way according to the planned time frame.
Yesterday the LAMSS trustees met under the chairmanship of Madam Speaker and copies of the LAMSS Review were provided to all members of this Assembly. The trustees agreed that I would invite comment from members on future arrangements for both existing and new members, and I expect to receive those comments within a month. The government’s intention is to introduce legislation in the second half of this calendar year in support of new superannuation arrangements.
To assist members in their analysis of the review, the Under Treasurer and the Commissioner of Superannuation will be available for briefings and discussion on issues raised in the review. I also plan to table the review report next week after members have had the opportunity to review the report.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, to inform the House of movement at the station in regards to this matter is extraordinary when we had these events put in train from 2001, prior to their arrival on the government benches. To then set about setting up a review which would take on the issues that you have already outlined and now, to satisfy your political agenda, you are endeavouring to have this strung out so it still fits in to the timetable that you always had in mind is to grandstand once again before the Territory community with an initiative of your own creation to gain maximum benefit at the next Territory election.
If it was not for your federal leader who was able to make a decision in a very short period of time and for the Prime Minister to come out and make a very clear and definitive statement in a very short period of time, we would probably have silence on this matter to this day, and you would be able to maximise your political benefits by having this spun out and presented and re-presented at the next Territory election.
So, bring it on. Get a clear view on this as soon as you possibly can because you have had a fair time to have a look at this. We look forward to having a clear view from the Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, in response, we went to the last election saying we would bring superannuation for parliamentarians in line with community expectations. I make the point that the then government did not make any such commitment. We made a clear commitment that it would be in place by the time of the next election and, as I indicated, we started the review in 2002. The opposition was consulted, Independent members were consulted and, as I have said publicly, we have many priorities in government; this one was moving along.
In line with national activity on this issue, we have brought it forward. The plans were to do it in an orderly and sensible way, and this is what we are doing. I hope that every member of this House is very clear about community expectation on parliamentarians’ superannuation, because this is the expectation we will meet. However, we will do it in a sensible and orderly way, and I hope I have support from the 25 members in here in doing that.
Increase in Teacher Numbers
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to report to the House on the progress of fulfilling the government’s election promise of 100 additional teachers over this term. Sixty positions have been fully funded to date, and the balance of 40 will be funded in the 2004-05 budget. All of the positions have been provided above formula to ensure the government’s statement that 100 extra teachers would be provided will have been adhered to. Of the first 20 employed in 2001-02, 11 went to remote communities for the specific purpose of providing special education support. They were Borroloola, Maningrida, Shepherdson College, Yuendumu, Batchelor, Ngukurr, Ti Tree, Yulara/Mutitjulu, Yirrkala, Gunbalunya and Angurugu. This government provided special education support to remote communities for the first time and, as minister, I am proud of that.
Special education positions were also placed at three urban schools: Casuarina Street Primary, Bakewell and Woodroffe Primary. Special education teachers were also allocated to each of the five group schools in the Arnhem cluster. In 2002-03, 20 positions were allocated to a range of areas in need of support. Three were deployed to a newly-formed capability development unit, on which I have received excellent feedback from schools within my electorate utilising that service.
The need for alternative education programs for students at risk has been met with the allocation of five teachers to the program based in Palmerston and serving the students of both Palmerston and the northern suburbs of Darwin. The five group schools, comprised of more than more than 60 small schools from all over the Territory, each received an assistant principal to provide logistical curriculum support to a large proportion of the Territory’s remote indigenous students. A remote education resource development project to catch the Alice Springs group schools was also allocated two teachers.
In 2003-04, 20 additional teachers will be deployed, with 10 specifically to augment the English as a Second Language general support program. Of the remaining 10, four positions are to develop teaching and learning using information technology within LATIS, Learning and Technology in Schools; two positions are to research the various approaches to literacy in classrooms with a view to identifying evidence-based methodologies to advance student learning; one position to research effective education interventions and to share information on best practice; and one position to manage the range of alternative provision sites in Alice Springs. The final two will be allocated to relief teacher pools in regional and remote centres where the lack of availability of relief teachers limits opportunities for teachers’ professional development and does impact on the quality and consistency of students’ education.
Forty positions will be allocated through 2004-05 to complete the roll-out of 100 additional teachers. The most effective employment of these is yet to be determined, however, as minister, I am becoming increasingly aware of the need to address behaviour management issues in schools. The Australian Education Union identifies behaviour management as the second main concern of Territory teachers. Parents have also raised this with me as an issue in need of focussed effort. Ten teachers will be dedicated to work on behaviour management in Northern Territory schools with a view to increasing schools’ capacity to effectively address behaviour management issues.
The government’s decision to provide an additional 100 teachers has boosted the capacity of the department to deliver quality outcomes across a range of areas in need of support right across the Territory. This government values education. We place much importance on supporting our young people and we will continue to grow and improve the quality of education services in the Territory.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the staff in the recruitment area of the department for having done so well this year to ensure that our schools have started with an almost full complement of teachers. I believe we were some 11 short, however, compared to other years this has been a remarkable year and congratulations to those people. I also marvel at the minister saying that over the next year, in 2004-05, he is going to bring in 40 new teachers. This is a big call. He has had three years and he only has 60%. And in the last year of term, he is going to bring in another 40% to get the complement. I do not know where he is going to get them from, but I will wait cautiously and watch what he does.
One of the most important things about our teaching cohort is that they have been waiting for a long time for the review into secondary education. That has been sitting around - probably under the minister’s lap or wherever. We have not seen hide nor hair of that report. It has been a long while coming and I believe the minister has something to hide there. From what I have heard from people who have had a hand in it, it is going to cost this government a whole heap of money and they are not prepared to do it.
Therefore, minister, if you have this report sitting there collecting dust, please show us so that we can give you good, credible and constructive criticism on it. There is no point hiding that report behind your continued delays, as you have with all things you have done under this government. Again, I congratulate the improvement in staffing numbers done this year. It has been a remarkable achievement, and I look forward to continuing progress in this regard.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow minister for his genuine comments in relation to start of the year: just nine vacancies on day one, right across the system of 2100 teachers - a star comparison to the previous years where we had 30-odd or 40 last year and similar the year before. It was a great focussed effort this year, and my congratulations and commendations to the officers of the department involved in that.
In relation to the secondary review, there is a protocol that when the government undertakes reviews of any sort of nature, Cabinet sees it first. It has not been to Cabinet yet; DEET has been preparing the Cabinet submission on the recommendations involved in the report. Once it goes to Cabinet, Cabinet will take it forward and there will be extensive and comprehensive community engagement on all of the recommendations within that report - particularly around the major issues going to a structure of delivery of secondary education in the Northern Territory. It is nothing to do with the amount of the resources; we will actually be resourcing it this year. However, we are committed to a very comprehensive round of community engagement and consultation.
Ministerial Visit to Sri Lanka and Vietnam
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, in December last year I had the honour of representing the Northern Territory on official visits, as Minister for Sport and Recreation, to Sri Lanka and Vietnam. I was accompanied by Executive Director of Sport and Recreation, Mr Phillip Leslie, ministerial advisor, Mr Chandra Seneviratne.
Sri Lanka, as you know, are to be special guest in the Northern Territory later this year, when its national cricket side comes to Darwin to play against the Chief Minister’s XI in June, and an historic test in Northern Australia against Australia on the 1 July.
The visit to Sri Lanka was to discuss the forthcoming test series between Australia and Sri Lanka, as well as to discuss the Arafura Games. I met first with Mr Johnston Fernando, MP, Minister for Youth Affairs and Sports. At this meeting, I was able to describe the improvements made to Marrara Oval to accommodate the Bangladesh series in 2003, and spoke of the way of the Darwin community had embraced international cricket. Minister Fernando was assured that the Sri Lankan team would receive a warm welcome from all Territorians - a sentiment I am sure that all of us here would endorse.
I also provided information regarding the Arafura Games to be held in 2005. Minister Fernando and his senior officials expressed considerable interest in Sri Lanka attending the games for the first time since 1999. In fact, I recall his very words: ‘You have come all this way to visit us, and we are certainly pleased to look at having a delegation attend the Arafura Games in May 2005’.
I held a subsequent meeting with the Chief Executive of Sri Lanka Cricket, and ex-Sri Lankan cricket captain, Mr Anura Tennekoon. This meeting discussed Darwin as a venue and the forthcoming test series. Mr Tennekoon advised that a senior official from Sri Lanka Cricket would visit Darwin to inspect the facilities in early 2004. The board offices are at the Singhalese Sports Club ground, which was being prepared for the third test against England to start this weekend.
A welcome reception was held at Australia House in Colombo, hosted by the Deputy High Commissioner for Australia, Ms Kate Logan. It was attended by Minister Fernando, Sri Lanka cricket officials and prominent dignitaries, along with some Australian expatriates. At the reception, I spoke about preparations for the upcoming series.
My visit to Vietnam was at the invitation of Mr Nguyen Danh Thai, Minster of Sports and Physical Culture of Vietnam, and Chairman of the 22nd South-East Asian Games Organising Committee. The South East Asian Games is a regional sporting games held every second year in south-east Asia. Vietnam was the host country, with competitions split between Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City as well as a small number of regional venues. The 2001 Games were held in Kuala Lumpur and the participating countries are generally those that also participate in the Arafura Games. They are: Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Cambodia, Brunei, Laos, Myanmar and East Timor. The sports on offer vary slightly at each games but typically include shooting, sepaktakraw, swimming, cycling, gymnastics, athletics, soccer, tennis, archery, karate, etcetera. In total there are 442 medals in 32 sports. As key sporting officials from the region attend the games it is important for the Territory to be represented and remind respective delegations about the Arafura Games.
The opening ceremony was held at the new purpose-built My Dinh National Stadium in Hanoi, which has capacity for 40 000 people. As well as the march past of 3775 participating athletes, there was a lighting of the torch and a cultural performance. A key aspect of a wonderful opening ceremony was the use of dancers, music and a laser light display. The stadium was also the venue for the athletics competition and some soccer games. I attended a meeting hosted by the Prime Minister of Vietnam, Mr Phan Van Khai. All in all, the meetings in both Hanoi and in Colombo, Sri Lanka, went really well. We expect to have delegations visit.
Madam Speaker, the cost of the journey for myself, Mr Leslie and Mr Seneviratne was approximately $20 750, including $18 000 approximately in air fares and $2270-odd in accommodation.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, it is good to see the minister being proactive - certainly in the area of cricket. No doubt there is little resistance from this side of the House that it was an historical event, well received by many Territorians, last year, when international cricket came to Darwin. I went to the welcoming dinner at the Aviation Museum, the fundraiser. I did not see the minister there; perhaps he had another engagement.
However, the real concern is this: we have heard about the emphasis on promoting cricket; we have heard about this overseas trip costing in the order of $20 000. Yet, we do not see any money spent at Freds Pass. There are 17 000 rural taxpayers and not one cent from this Martin Labor government was spent at Freds Pass. There are hundreds and hundreds of kids who go there every weekend. We have soccer, polocrosse, and rugby, yet this government does not see fit to support the efforts of those people.
Sport and recreation is fundamental to the Territory lifestyle, but the Martin Labor government simply spends all its time obsessed with things like gay law reform and swimming pool fencing and not supporting Territory teams.
Madam Speaker, it is well known that this government will not even supply sports ambassadors, kids, and teams representing the Territory interstate with Territory flags. They cannot supply any logistical support for these teams and yet they have the audacity to stand up here and wax lyrical about the tens of thousands of dollars they spend on overseas trips promoting cricket.
Mr AH KIT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, what a hypocritical response from the sport and recreation opposition spokesperson. I certainly would hate to imagine if the CLP won government at the next election and you were to be the minister for Sport and Recreation, as you would find very little time to attend most of the events because you would be busy doing some other work.
However, I have been working with the Freds Pass trustee, with the board, and my colleague, when he was the minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, was able to offer up a shed that is going to be removed. I am working with people from that board, Andrew Blackadder and Bob Shewring, trying to see if the council would support some funds being diverted from the $1m we committed to a swimming pool to allow that shed to be erected. We have continually provided assistance from time to time to the Freds Pass trustees and we have more in the sport and recreation field other than your electorate.
Prawn Broodstock
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I rise today to report on the Northern Territory’s prawn farming industry and to highlight a significant issue confronting industry development.
The Northern Territory’s prawn farming industry has a bright future, with two major prawn farms to come on stream shortly. The industry has grown considerably, with 27 hectares of prawn ponds constructed near Berry Springs last year, which brings the total area of ponds available for prawn culture in Territory to 75 hectares. In 2004, a further 60 hectares of ponds are planned near Ceylon Point in Bynoe Harbour.
Currently, the Northern Territory’s prawn farming industry relies on stocking a large number of juveniles imported from Queensland and Western Australia. Importation of juveniles exposes our prawn farms to the risk of bringing in non-endemic disease. Farms in Queensland usually get the first option to any stock and our local prawn farmers tell us that they are at the end of the queue, often receiving poor quality juvenile prawns. A key hurdle to a local hatchery supplying grow-out stock is sourcing broodstock.
The Northern Prawn Fishery, one of the largest prawn fisheries in the world, is managed by the Commonwealth under arrangements negotiated through the Offshore Constitutional Settlement. My department has been negotiating with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority over a long time about a permit for the trial collection of black tiger broodstock prawns for a period of one year.
Under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement Agreement that was signed in 1995, the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory agreed that prawn farmers in the Territory should be able to collect their own broodstock. Despite this, the conditions under which the Commonwealth permit has been issued means that local farmers must engage Northern Prawn Fisheries trawlers to do the collection rather than collecting their own breeding stock, as all other fish farmers in the Territory can. This meant that some prawn farmers in the Territory have had to pay more than $7000 for each individual broodstock prawn - a very expensive prawn!
I have now instructed my department to go back to AFMA to negotiate for our farmers to have more reasonable access to black tiger prawn broodstock. Reasonable access would allow the farmers to employ the services of specialist, smaller vessels to dedicated broodstock collecting and handling equipment, thus making the whole process more efficient and cost effective. The small number of broodstock prawns required will not pose a threat to sustainability of black tiger prawns nor the commercial prawn species taken in the fishery. Access to prawn broodstock would be of enormous benefit to the growth and future of all prawn farmers in the Territory.
Suntay Aquaculture is a new Darwin company that has entered into a joint venture with Charles Darwin University. The joint venture has the aim of establishing sustainable black tiger prawn hatchery technology in the Northern Territory using disease-free local broodstock. I recently had the pleasure of visiting the facilities at the university and was able to see first-hand the level of investment, commitment and dedication being applied to this project.
This company, in collaboration with CDU, has successfully bred black tiger prawns from local broodstock. Initial disease testing of the prawns had been very positive, with the first batches of disease-free juvenile prawns now being produced. I was impressed with the dedication and commitment of the company, together with university staff, in successfully breeding local prawns.
This is a very exciting chapter for the emerging prawn farming industry here in the Territory. We have seen the greatest level of investment ever in constructing prawn grow-out facilities and we have the university and Suntay Aquaculture now producing disease-free local stocks.
All going well and, if all prawn farms are stocked in 2004-05, production of more than 1000 tonnes of prawns worth over $10m at the farm gate is well within the industry’s reach.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, a very important industry and one that might be in its juvenile stages in its own right but, certainly, huge potential in the Northern Territory, particularly in the Top End of the Northern Territory, to develop world class prawn farms and, certainly, aquaculture in general.
On that point, obviously land is going to be an issue, and that is something the former Lands minister would know about. It is very hard to find - even with all the land, even in negotiations with Aboriginal owners - the right portion of land to establish prawn farms that need certain mixes of water, high ground and so on.
My congratulations also to Suntay Aquaculture for having the confidence to invest in the Northern Territory with their Ceylon Point farm. This is a fantastic development bringing cutting edge, worldwide, leading edge technology to the Northern Territory. As the minister has pointed out, the establishment of the hatchery developed from a wild catch of tiger prawns off our coast. In the joint venture with the Charles Darwin University they not only will supply themselves when they start construction later this year, but they are also now being inundated with inquiries from other prawn farmers, both here in the Territory and in southern states, because they have produced progeny that is disease free. There have been major issues in the past with importing progeny from other states into the Territory where those progeny have died with a very substantial cost to people like Adam Bonney and Tracker Tilmouth and others.
Congratulations to all of those people who are investing in the Territory, particularly Suntay Aquaculture, and I wish them well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I concur with the previous speaker. The prawn industry is a developing industry. However, I would like to make note that Litchfield Shire has a reasonably large number of prawn farms. It also has a history of, I suppose, a poor siting of prawn farms, as people would remember, in the Shoal Bay area.
I believe there are issues that need to be continually monitored. One is certainly the quarantine of introducing disease, and there was that scare not so long back with the white virus that they thought had been introduced through the aquaculture farm at Channel Island. There is also the issue of pollution, that is, trying to reduce the amount of water that is put back into the harbour. I know there were certainly moves to try to reduce that to nil. That is something we should continually monitor. Also, the siting of existing prawn farms that they do not get too close to mangroves., not only because of the sulphate muds, but you do give some protection of the mangroves from development in general.
I believe it is a great industry, however it is one that, if we believe that it will be a sustainable industry into the future, we must be careful how we plan it.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments. I agree with them. It is a very important emerging industry for the Territory. I would also like to congratulate Emilio Suntay and the CDU. He has shown confidence in the Territory in investing a significant amount of money to establish his closed circuit prawn farm, with nearly zero emissions, far away from mangroves in the Bynoe Harbour area. I was very pleased to facilitate that land availability for Emilio. My colleague, the member for Johnston, is working with Emilio for the provision of roads and power.
It is a very important industry. I am informed that they have made significant advances in breeding local stock at the CDU – the CSIRO has managed to breed prawns once a year - they have managed to do it four times a year, which is a significant benefit for the prawn farms.
Other people are now coming to the government with proposals for a red claw farm, and we will be very keen to see this kind of industry coming to the Territory.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
SWIMMING POOL SAFETY BILL
(Serial 206)
(Serial 206)
Madam SPEAKER: Government Business of the Day. Minister for Local Government.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to present a bill without notice relating to the safety of swimming pools.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
A member: Come on.
A member: The safety of swimming pools …
Madam SPEAKER: I will say that again. Is leave granted?
Members: Aye.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, I present a bill entitled Swimming Pool Safety Bill 2004 (Serial 206).
Bill read a first time.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I wish to advise that it is my intention to give notice later today to suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent the bill being passed through all stages at this sittings.
A member interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry, but I just wanted to pick up on exactly what the minister is asking for. Is he putting a motion that the bill now be read a second time?
Madam SPEAKER: He has.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I wish to speak to that motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, the minister has first right to speak to the motion.
Mr ELFERINK: So, can I just get …
Mr Ah Kit: Madam Speaker, can I …
Madam SPEAKER: Just wait a minute!
Mr ELFERINK: Can I get some clarification on this particular issue, please, Madam Speaker? So he is putting the motion that the bill now be read a second time?
Madam SPEAKER: That is right.
Mr ELFERINK: And he is now going to argue the reasons why the bill be read a second time?
Madam SPEAKER: He is now going to give his second reading speech, as is the custom.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, as I understand it, he has walked in here and simply told us that he is going to give notice. He has asked for no motion; he has simply walked in here to give notice. He is telling us that he is going to bring on a speech …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Let me clarify what has just occurred.
Mr ELFERINK: And I was on my feet to talk to that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Macdonnell, the minister sought leave - and I even said that twice - to present a bill without notice. Then he presented the bill, and now he is doing what normally occurs doing a second …
Mr Elferink: But, Madam Speaker, just as a matter of …
Madam SPEAKER: Do not interrupt when I am speaking, thank you.
Mr Kiely: Throw him out, he does it all the time.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Now he has moved that the bill be now read a second time. That is the sequence of events that just occurred.
Mr ELFERINK: All right. Madam Speaker, I was on my feet when he sought leave to speak to his motion, to speak to that issue. Am I denied the right to speak to it?
Madam SPEAKER: The minister had the floor.
Mr Stirling: You missed the call.
Mr ELFERINK: I did not miss the call; that is the point. I was on my feet.
Madam SPEAKER: But the minister had the floor and he had the call.
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sure the reason for the member for Macdonell’s comments is that it is quite unusual for a bill to move straight to a second reading. Normally, notice has been given that the bill will move to a second reading stage. Even on urgency that normally happens on the second day, or after 24 hours of giving notice. The confusion is, do we now understand that there is a new procedure, which I believe is in contravention of standing orders, whereby no 24 hours notice is given and the minister is asking the House to accept the fact that he can move directly to his second reading speech? If that is the case, we would like to debate that motion.
Madam SPEAKER: May I just say that I purposely said: ‘Is leave granted’ twice, to get the approval of the Chamber, and it was given. I am not quite sure - could the member for Brennan explain to me exactly what you are saying?
Mr BURKE: Simply, in normal procedure, Madam Speaker, we would accept the fact that notice is given of the bill, because there would be 24 hours before the second reading speech would be given. That is what I understood was the process this morning. We now find that, within a minute, the minister is going to move into his second reading speech. That is quite unusual in this Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: That is right.
Mr BURKE: Therefore, I would suggest that that alone should be a subject of debate.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, I understand exactly what the member for Brennan is saying, and he is right. He is right; normally we would give notice one day, introduce the bill the next. Given that we will be endeavoring to pass this bill on urgency through all stages of this sitting, it is simply to allow the opposition and anyone else 24 hours more notice of the bill than they otherwise would have, if we gave notice today and introduced tomorrow. Therefore, to clarify for the member for Brennan, there is no intention or device in this that the government will do this on every occasion; it is simply the nature of this bill that it requires urgency and it is really giving the House 24 hours more notice and ability to get across the bill than they otherwise would have. No more in it than that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this just turns me to my first issue. When the member sought leave, I rose to speak on that. I was not given the call and the matter was simply put to the vote. This is an issue of process, and process is going to be a large part of this issue. I believe I should at least be afforded the opportunity to speak on the minister’s application to this House that he could move straight into a second reading speech. Otherwise, I see it as a contravention of the very principles that our standing orders outline.
Madam SPEAKER: When leave was granted, member for Macdonnell, I gave the nod to the minister to speak.
Mr Henderson: You could have said no.
Mr Elferink: I did say no, and then I got to my feet.
Madam SPEAKER: Just let me ask the Clerk before you all just start jumping.
As the Clerk says, we went through the process of seeking leave. I tried to clarify it twice and where we are now is at the point where the minister is going to give his second reading speech. That is where we are at. That is the process that we have gone through and you had your opportunity earlier.
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, and I stand to be corrected, but the minister did not move that so much of standing orders be suspended and that is a contradiction of standing orders that we can move to the process of debate without the suspension of standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister sought leave to present a bill without notice. Those were his words and leave was granted.
Mr Baldwin: All you have to suspend is standing orders because it has contravened the standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: When leave was granted he just followed the process …
Mr Baldwin: But we said no.
Madam SPEAKER: … and presented.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I said no and then I climbed to my feet when …
Madam SPEAKER: I did not …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the point is that the minister comes in here and says, ‘I am going to do this,’ and then simply goes down the procedure of seeking leave. We should have a right …
Mr Stirling: Why aren’t you interested in the bill?
Mr ELFERINK: I am very interested.
Madam SPEAKER: I am advised that the process I went through was to clarify because I had not heard whether there was any dissenting voice on leave, so I again put the question, ‘Was leave granted’, and it was a ‘Yes’. I have gone through the process as required. If you are now saying that there was a dissenting voice on leave, then I have to say that I did not hear it. That is why I reaffirmed that. However, for the sake of fairness within this Chamber and because we are debating something that is fairly important, I will put the question again. Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. Minister.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to introduce …
Madam SPEAKER: No, no, no. You now have to move your suspension of standing orders.
Suspension of Standing Orders
Present bill without notice
Present bill without notice
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from introducing forthwith a bill relating to the safety of swimming pools.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, now you may speak.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this motion of suspending standing orders. What the government is trying to do in this House is to usurp a process which is longstanding and has not been experienced by any member of this House, not by any member of this House, including the longest serving member of this House. I have grave concerns about this.
Madam Speaker, it is very important to go through this process because this House is not subservient to the government; it works the other way around. This is something that seems to be totally forgotten by this government. This process that the government is going through is something that we have already seen examples of in relation to this particular issue that the government is trying to bring forward. Let’s go through the chronology of how we find ourselves in a place where the government feels it is necessary to walk in to this Chamber and usurp this Chamber’s authority by simply asserting its right to bring things on if and when it pleases.
This history goes back to well before October 2002 when the Chief Minister came in to this House and said to Territorians that she would introduce comprehensive swimming pool legislation and through that process she did it correctly. She brought the matter before the House. When she bought the matter before the House, she did it in the correct fashion. However, the process that she had engaged in publicly before bringing the matter to the House was a fait accompli. She had already said: ‘This is what we are going to do; this is how we are going to proceed in relation to pool fencing in the Northern Territory’. That is fine; that is her business. Because the whole thing was rushed through the public environment as well as the parliamentary environment, by the time that August 2003, only ten months later, rolled around, the government came into this House seeking to push things through on urgency. We needed to urgently amend this bill.
The urgent amendments to this bill were passed with some debate. It is worth going back to the fact that the government should have been aware that there were going to be problems with process back in the 2002 environment. In the 2002 environment, the government accused the opposition, which asked sensible questions on the matter, of nitpicking and repeatedly used the expression, if you read the debates: nitpicking.
What the opposition was trying to do was avoid exactly the situation in which the government found itself in August 2003 when they had to bring urgent matters to this Assembly and push them through to make the legislation more workable. They knew that they were in trouble that stage, yet in December 2003, not two months after the urgent and hurried-up process of setting aside standing orders and making an amendments to their original swimming pool legislation, they announced a review.
They made those comments in about mid-December 2003 and in January 2004, they started advertising for their review. As a result of advertising for their review, their review was held in January 2004, which was last month. This review was held within four months of their very urgent legislation being pushed through this House - once again, a direct result of the problems they have with process.
The review is handed down in January 2004 and in early February 2004, this month, last week in fact, the government committed itself to a whole change in legislative structure of the legislation itself. Now they are in this House trying to push through this legislation as quickly as they can. Those people who forget the lessons of history are oft doomed to repeat them. In this instance, we have to appreciate that in this place, we as a parliament are not bound by the reactionary approach of this government towards drafting legislation and pushing it through. That is exactly what the minister is trying to do here today.
The minister wants to come in here and totally usurp the long-standing processes that we have in this parliament to accommodate what he wants to achieve. The excuse is: ‘We want to leave it sitting on the Notice Paper a little bit longer, so you guys can have a better look at it, and we will pass it next week’. The fact is that had they listened in the first place, they would not be in the position they are in now. This then places the opposition in an invidious situation: do we compliment the government and assist them in usurping standing orders so they can hurry through these changes, whatever they are -I do not know what they are yet - or do we sit here and say: ‘No, we are going to apply ourselves to process’, and find ourselves in the horrible situation that we will end up doing what the government starting out doing, and that was causing all sorts of problems in the community.
Nothing prevents the second reading speech being passed around to each and every member before the minister delivers it. Nothing! They could have easily have done this yesterday or even on Friday if it was ready. The point here, Madam Speaker, is that the abuse of process that we are starting to see is starting to corrode the rights of this Chamber to go about its business.
I would strongly urge the government to reconsider the way it approaches this Chamber and strongly urge this government to reconsider the way it does its job. For my part, the process that the government is taking is an insult to the people of this Chamber, and it is an insult to Territorians in terms of their democratic rights and processes. This business of walking in here and simply saying, ‘This is what I am going to do’, is not good enough and I certainly will not support the motion. I will support the dissemination of the second reading speech and I would support the normal processes being adhered to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will be brief, so we can get on with the second reading. The hypocrisy of members opposite is astounding. The convention is – and it is in the practice of trying to cooperatively manage the business of the House – the opposition were briefed by the Government Whip yesterday that we were going through this process. They had no problems with it. This is purely a stunt by the member for Macdonnell who is quickly becoming an oxygen thief in this Chamber. I am advised that it costs about $6000 an hour to run this place. We could have been debating this bill, and that little tirade has probably cost the taxpayer about $1000 in time wasting.
We know those members opposite have had a history of neglecting this issue. They have had a history of not being concerned in regards to two or three children a year drowning a year in the Northern Territory. We, with good intent, are trying to resolve this issue. I urge all members of this House to participate genuinely in this debate. It is a very important issue. It goes to the safety of our children in our community. I urge honourable members to let the minister proceed with his second reading. I move the motion be put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mrs Miller
Ms Scrymgour Mr Mills
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that motion to suspend so much of standing orders to allow the bill to be presented forthwith be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Does this include the urgency motion that the minister spoke on?
Madam SPEAKER: This is moving the suspension of standing orders to present the bill forthwith.
Mr DUNHAM: I raise the point of order, Madam Speaker, in that when the minister went into his second reading speech he did speak about urgency, and the parliament had not decided. I wonder whether you have in fact made a declaration yourself under Standing Order 179 regarding urgency?
Madam SPEAKER: The minister had not, in fact, moved the second reading speech when he advised members that he was going to suspend standing orders later in the day to pass the bill through all stages. He had not started his second reading speech before we did all this. Therefore, we have now moved a motion that standing orders be suspended to allow him to introduce his bill. That is where we are now.
Mr DUNHAM: Then my question still stands, Madam Speaker. Have you made a declaration under Standing Order 179?
Madam SPEAKER: I have not been asked. No, I have not been asked.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, is there now a question before the House?
Madam SPEAKER: No. We have just moved the question about standing orders.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving the following motion:
- That this Assembly censure and condemn the Chief Minister for her handling of the pool fencing issue and, in particular, for:
with no room for discretion;
11. the indecent haste and abuse of process in rushing these new laws through this parliament in the next few days.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 95 the government will accept the censure as it is proposed - an interesting tactic to propose a censure before we have heard the proposed legislation. Never mind the confusion on the other side; we will take the censure.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly censure and condemn the Chief Minister for her handling of the pool fencing issue and, in particular, for:
with no room for discretion;
Madam SPEAKER: Can we have a copy of that motion. Yes. Okay, off you go.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, the issue here is the process which has been foisted upon this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory. It was never the issue of the safety of children - never has been the issue of the safety of children. It is to do with the very process whereby this legislation has been foisted upon this community.
The points that have been raised were simply the points that have been raised by the Northern Territory community. They believe that the process that has been in put place, to foist in a highhanded way, has cost Territorians immeasurably. We talked about the ‘oxygen thief’ over there before, but legislation has been put in place and now dismantled because of the pressure of Territorians who have risen up and spoken very clearly so the Chief Minister has now heard. It is costing Territorians $21m at least. Twenty one million dollars! You reach into their pockets and you can take $21m and you will expect Territorians to say, ‘What a fine Chief Minister we have. At least she is sorry. At least she apologised’. That apology comes with a $21m price tag at their expense.
You can go ahead and fix the problem. But it is costing immeasurably, and it is costing due to the lack of community consultation in the very first instance and the way that this has been foisted through in this Chamber even in the way it was endeavoured to be done this morning.
The lack of fairness in the system that was implemented, the inconsistency in your legislation, is a direct result of the haste in which it was foisted upon the Northern Territory community; the fact that there was no adequate consultation at the outset. The community is of that view. There was no proper consultation in the first instance. You have community councils coming out and saying that you did not listen right at the beginning. You had the opportunity to assess models that were in place and you paid no heed to systems that were already in place. In an endeavour, and a misguided and a very courageous endeavour, as Bob Collins would describe it, you charged in where fools would rush in and angels would fear to tread. You now have a structure in place that you have to hastily dismantle and in a manner, which we have presented to the parliament, an abortion of process that does not allow us, as members who represent the Northern Territory community, due process in being able to access the details of the legislation so that we can fairly and slowly and sensibly fix up the problem that you have created here in the Northern Territory.
You have overridden the high priority Territorians place on lifestyle and freedom. By bringing this into this Chamber today in this way, is a clear illustration of the political imperatives that drive the Chief Minister. It is so important. Obviously, you have done some polling; obviously, the message was delivered very securely to the members sitting opposite that their future is in jeopardy. So, with great haste, extraordinary haste, we now seek to dismantle the solution that you foisted upon the Northern Territory community at great expense and in a manner which brings disrepute upon this parliament.
The fact that the administration of the act was not working; there are significant fundamental problems. These are issues that were raised in your own review of the operation of the Swimming Pool Fencing Act, which you have managed to do in great haste, obviously indicating the level of concern that has been placed upon you by your own polling, that you have serious problems with regards to this legislation. We must register, on behalf of Territorians, the anger that is felt in the community by the way in which you have wielded this across the Northern Territory community: how you have interrupted peoples’ lifestyles; how you have invaded their backyards; how you have put neighbour against neighbour; because of an ill-conceived concept and, in its mechanics, was seriously flawed.
You had many opportunities here, at the urging of opposition members, to slow the process down and to get it right. You ignored the opportunity presented to you during the introduction to slow it down and address some of the concerns that were raised at the very beginning. Those concerns are concerns that have risen up to bite and bite most fiercely.
I notice also, Chief Minster, that in the early days your photo was hoisted very prominently beside this great initiative, which you owned personally. Now your photo seems to have disappeared. It is something that is going to reappear in a completely different form and we have a very repentant Chief Minister who is desperately sorry for what she has done. Well, Territorians are going to remember. They are going to remember, whenever they see their pool fence, this Chief Minister who, in a high-handed way, has implemented a legislative regime that has interfered in a most profound way with the lifestyle of Territorians.
The issue here is simply the principle of process. To allow this parliament this morning to have your remedy in such a high-handed way that we had no opportunity even to access the legislation before we heard the second reading speech - you wheeled it straight in.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: This is a simple issue of process. You have distorted this process this morning and you want to bring it on with great urgency without …
Members interjecting.
Mr Burke: I am proud of this legislation, you all said.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr Stirling: We are proud that now kids drowned since – unlike you! You had responsibility. You could have acted, but you were too gutless.
Mr Burke: You couldn’t care less about kids’ lives! You are only interested in votes!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan! Member for Brennan. Order! Deputy Chief Minister, order! The Leader for the Opposition has the floor. I am sure he would like to continue.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, this is not the opposition’s censure motion. This is a censure motion that is delivered to the Chief Minister on behalf of Territorians, every Territorian who has been inconvenienced, put at financial loss, who had neighbor against neighbor as a result of the actions of this Chief Minister. It is a censure motion that is delivered on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory and you must, as Chief Minister, accept full responsibility for what you have done: legislation to which you tied yourself, of which you are eminently proud. You paraded yourself attached to this legislation. It is on behalf of Territorians that I deliver this censure to you, Chief Minister, for the way in which you have managed this issue.
The number of people who have had the opportunity to express their opinion in a very short time frame and the number of people who have responded in the very brief window of opportunity you gave them over the Christmas period is extraordinary if any member would like to read the report on the review of the operation of Swimming Pool Fencing Act. It is a damning review. It is the way in which it has been done - I reflect the anger in the Northern Territory community at your actions, Chief Minister, at the way in which you have done this and at the way in which in this parliament this morning, you would like to short-circuit the process and introduce it as the highest priority just to save your face, just to save the political damage, to try to manage this issue in a way that will advance your own political agenda.
Playing politics is what is driving this. It is not principally the safety of children. It is principally the way in which you look, the way you appear with your team before the Northern Territory community. It would be wrong of me as an elected member and the Leader of the Opposition to let this pass without registering strongly how Northern Territory families feel about the results of the decision you have passed on to the Northern Territory community.
You have had public servants go up and down the track on the show circuit endeavouring to sell your message, endeavouring to try to pacify the concerns of the community. I was with them on that show circuit. There was a level of hostility being experienced and articulated in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and, finally, Darwin.
Those poor public servants who had to work hard to implement a regime that you had ill-considered and brought to bear upon the Northern Territory community suffered immeasurably as a result of your actions. On a personal note, I noticed that at the end of the last show in Darwin, those good public servants who represented your best interests and the legislation that you attached yourself to, were largely ignored by you, Chief Minister. You did not want much to do with them because you realised that the heat was increasing in the Northern Territory community and you knew that it was reflecting badly upon you and your members.
There has been significant offence committed in the lack of recognition for those public servants who have been required to implement a regime that was ill-considered in the first place, and was implemented in a way that did not allow proper consultation and careful consideration. The primary consideration, of course, should have been, and now Territorians know it was not, was the very best interests of Territory families. It seemed to be an ill-conceived and, I will say it again, a courageous move on the part of the Chief Minister to walk in, attach yourself to this issue and think that this is the one that is going to have you foisted up in lights as the greatest Chief Minister the Northern Territory has ever seen. Well, it has backfired on you, and it would be wrong to allow this to pass without the registering of the concern of the Northern Territory community for the actions of this Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this censure. I thought, the way the Leader of the Opposition was warming to his topic and the absolute outrage he was expressing against me personally, that he would actually take the time that is allocated. What was it, 12 minutes? Twelve minutes of wagging his finger at me and calling outrage. If we are going to talk about parliamentary process, and we had considerable debate wasting oxygen in here about parliamentary process, you had eleven points in your censure. Did you prosecute any of them? No. Part of the reason for having a censure is that you put down what you want to prosecute and you follow it through. And now we have had this opposition who have been lecturing parliament about process this morning not even following the process of a censure.
In the scheme of things that we are dealing with, pool fencing and children’s safety is a very important issue. Year after year in the Territory we had the tragedy of young kids drowning; kids drowning in our backyard pools. Even though the previous government had recommendations about the need to have overarching legislation, they never moved on it. Coronial recommendations that we needed to bring our pool fencing up to a proper standard, and it was never moved on by previous governments.
This is an indictment of the CLP. I make no apology for standing in here and wanting to do the best we can do by Territory kids. When I am criticised by the Opposition Leader for overriding the high priority Territorian’s place on lifestyle and freedom – do you know what lifestyle and freedom is about? It is making sure your kids can grow up in safety. That is what lifestyle and freedom is about. It is about making sure our kids have a chance to grow up, and the ones who did not have that opportunity because they drowned, and we had the highest under five drowning rate in Australia – to our shame – year after year. I make no apology. When the Opposition Leader said: ‘Oh, she put her pictures on the information’, I did it because I was committed to it. I was committed to making sure that we have the safest backyards that we could bring about in the Territory; that would match what was expected around Australia.
Madam Speaker, we moved on that legislation, we consulted with councils, and asked councils to give us their best ideas about it. We did talk through the process. We brought the legislation into parliament …
Mr Burke: You did not; you ignored them. They tried to tell you. You are big noting yourself.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, it is important that the member for Brennan yell a lot, because that would really help the debate.
Mr Burke: You had your photo all over the Northern Territory. You ignored them; that is why they are angry.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan! Order!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, we brought in the laws and we said at the time we brought those laws in just over a year ago that we would review those laws - we would make sure that they were workable laws. When we realised that, even though over the last year there were 6000 pools that were registered around the Territory, and for new pools those laws worked very well - there was no problem – we recognised – and there is no doubt about it – many people were very frustrated. They were trying to do the right thing; they were trying to support our lifestyle by making sure that there was adequate fencing in backyards around pools and spas …
Mr Dunham: They were trying to rent their houses out; they were trying to sell their properties. That is what they were trying to do.
Ms MARTIN: What they were trying to do was to achieve the aims of the legislation. We realised that, even though after amendment that created a level of flexibility, we were not getting there.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I am happy to stand here – and I stood in front of the media and I will say to any Territorian, I am sorry for those people …
Mr Dunham: Where is your apology? It is about time you apologised.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the Opposition Leader only spoke for 12 minutes. I can be quiet if the member for Drysdale will not be quiet. I can just sit down.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Drysdale will have his turn.
Mr Dunham: Oh, sure, I will have a go.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: I am not happy but I accept that it is important to say if somebody was frustrated about what happened with the pool fencing – and there were many – then I apologise. I have listened and we have acted. That is the proper response of government.
For the 6000 people who registered their pool and worked with the laws, that has been a positive experience. However, we recognise there were many who wanted to get their pools registered and the way the legislation was written was not facilitating that. We have recognised that. It is important that we recognise that. The overriding ambition here is to make sure that under-fives are safe around pools and spas in our backyards. That is what we want. The intention has not changed from the first legislation. That is what it is all about.
The Opposition Leader again gets it wrong, wrong, wrong. He started his tirade by saying: ‘This is not about keeping our children safe’. Well, what is it about? It is about keeping our children safe! It is about ensuring that they have a lifestyle. That is what it is all about.
Whilst we are talking about what the Opposition Leader cannot get right, he has a track record. He says it is not about the safety of children. Wrong. The Opposition Leader is wrong again. He says it is going to $21m. He is right on that, but the previous scheme with the early registration incentive scheme was going to cost in the same quantum. We made that commitment for incentives, and we will continue to make that commitment for the next four years. However, we have changed a combination of grant and loan to a straight grant; that is the difference. But the quantum is about the same.
Again, the Opposition Leader comes in here and he is wrong. He is wrong, wrong, wrong. Then he says we are trying to short-circuit the parliamentary process. The member for Macdonnell said: ‘Give us the second reading speech’. This is what the parliament is about. You put the second reading speech and the bill into the parliament.
Where are you opposition members coming from? On one hand you are demanding process, and then you are demanding that we throw it away. What we have done is simply to say we will bring the legislation in as early as we can, so you have more time to look at it; so that you have more time to produce, in the second reading debate, a good contribution. And we have had the silliest and the most uninformed comments about that in here this morning.
There is always capacity in our standing orders to have that kind of procedure happen. Always that kind of flexibility. And we put it properly to the parliament. So, the Leader of the Opposition comes in, he does not prosecute his case for a censure, and then gets it wrong. Let us talk about sensible debate in this parliament. If you want to say, Leader of the Opposition, that for pre-existing pools we did not get it right, I agree with you. I absolutely agree. For many pre-existing pools we got them across the line. For new pools, we got them across the line, but there were frustrations. We all heard them. Pools that had a fence that was maybe a centimeter too short; it could even be half a centimeter, as the Leader of Government Business said. The issue of neighbours: we know how much that caused grief. And that is part of the Australian Standard. So we have modified that to be sensible. We are saying if you own a pool, then your backyard is where your responsibility is, and you take responsibility for making sure that is at an acceptable standard.
We are achieving the same ends of making our children safe by different means. We are accepting that the previous legislation, while it had some strengths, also had some frustrations. So we are removing that legislation. We are bringing in new legislation. What I have clearly said is that I recognise the frustration, I am sorry about that, and let us move on. This is about good policy. This is also about creating safety, supporting lifestyle in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, it is an important issue. I am not denying that in the slightest. We recognise that the intention of where we were going with the previous legislation was the right one. We just had to look at a different pathway this time. So, while I can stand in here and listen to the rhetoric and finger-pointing and lecturing that the Leader of the Opposition did, what we should be united on in this parliament is child safety. It is supporting our lifestyle. The most important thing that I can say to this parliament over what has happened in the last 18 months is that we have not had one child drowning in the Northern Territory in a backyard in that time. That is fantastic! We should be cheering that. And the consciousness in our community of the importance of children and safety around backyard pools and fences backyard pools and spas has been heightened. I am proud of that.
I am not proud of the fact that we did not get the legislation right; not at all. So we will change that. However, I expect support for this new legislation. We will achieve the outcomes that we want. We will have more flexibility. We will have fences that may be two centimeters below Australian Standard, but safe for our children; they will be workable and they will be able to be registered. We have a more sensible process, we are recognising Territorians and their commitment to providing safety in backyards. We are saying to Territorians, ‘This is your responsibility; we will work with you. We will give you advice. If you want to change we have grants to assist in achieving our new Community Safety Standard,’ which pretty much in line with the Australian Standard or the modified Australian Standard, ‘You have a grant to achieve that’.
This is a workable scheme. It has been applauded by people who can use it, who will use it. I stand here saying yes, there were problems with one piece. We had 6000 pools registered. We are recognising that and we, Madam Speaker, are moving on.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, it is all very well for the Chief Minister to walk in here after all this time saying mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. The truth of the matter is: she was warned. She was told this was going to happen. And where was she told? She was told in this Chamber. How did she deal with it? She dismissed it as ‘nitpicking’: deliberately finding hypothetical examples as to why this legislation was going to have problems. We were told by the Chief Minister, ‘We know what we are doing. Just let us get on with it and you will discover that all will be sweetness and light and we can follow the yellow brick road to the wonderful Land of Oz’.
It is all very well for her to say sorry, but she has come into this place and been warned. There is the warning. It is the committee stages and second reading debate that went on in this Chamber on 8 October 2002. She was told by members on this side of the House, as well as a couple of comments from other members, and that should have been flagging warning bells. But so urgent was the need to get this legislation through that she chose not to speak to the public in the first instance. She would just brought the matter in this House, have the legislation go through the normal processes, spit it out the other end, and she would walk around being the rescuer of children. This is an issue that has been raised repeatedly by the Chief Minister this morning.
This comes to point one of the censure motion: the lack of fairness and inconsistency of the legislation and the way that it was applied. The way it was applied was rigorous. She was told in the second reading debate and through the committee stages of this bill that that was going to be a problem. She was told and she chose to ignore it. It is frustrating in the extreme to find myself back in this Chamber back on this issue when the Chief Minister and her colleagues in the Labor Party were told, and it was made abundantly clear to them, that these problems would end up in inconsistency and would create problems with the way it was applied. A centimetre on a pool fence in my instance, and I have to declare an interest: I am an owner of a spa. When that spa was fenced, because it had to comply with this legislation - my father-in-law was kind enough to help me put up the fence before it was certified - the inspector came around, and we were told that a child could dig under the dirt where the palm trees were. We were there with a mattock and axe for half an hour digging under the fence so we could put in a small piece of concrete to prevent a child from getting in there.
That was the sort of pedantic stuff that the inspectors were bound to by this legislation; they had no choice. It was this Chief Minister who put them into the situation where they had to almost apologise every time that they had to apply the law. This Chief Minister was told it was going to happen, and she chose to ignore it. Now she says: ‘Oh, I am sorry. Oops’. I am afraid that it cost me thousands of dollars to get the fence up in accordance with the legislation.
I now have the certificate. This is the second part of point one: now that I have the certificate, how long is the certificate good for? How long is it good for? Well, I do not know because trees grow, fences change shape, vines grow on fences, things change around fences. What does the certificate actually do? It just tells me that at particular point of time, my certificate is good for a fence which complies that may not comply in a few months time. Really, what I have to do is have this piece of paper so that I can sell my house or put a tenant into it. Indeed, it has been a frustrating thing not only suffered by me, but suffered so many Territorians who have tried to comply with the law, which was policed very vigorously.
Overriding the high priority Territorians place on lifestyle and freedom: my fence complied with the Alice Springs Town Council By-laws, when they existed. I had self-closing doors around my spa, it was separation fenced, effectively the boundary fence, but it complied. I once watched a 14 year old boy try to climb over my fence, and the only way you could get to my spa - I am just using my own experience by way of example - was to climb over the concrete fence at the front gate of my property, which is about 10 feet high. It took him a good effort and while to get over it. Since that time, I have had to make my pool fence comply with the Chief Minister’s legislation, this parliament’s legislation. Consequently, I have had to put a boundary fence inside a boundary fence for the purposes of making my spa comply with the regulations. So my spa now complies with the regulations, and sure, with the guard towers and barbed wire it does not look very different to Alcatraz in terms of the amount of safety that is around it. Good. The safety aspect has been completed, the only thing that I could think of doing to make it more child safe is pouring concrete into the spa and just having it set in that system. However, the fact is that Territorians do enjoy a lifestyle.
That issue was raised in the original committee stages of this debate. The Chief Minister was warned that this was going to be a problem. She was told by members in this House that that was going to be a problem. Yet steadfastly she said: ‘This is the way we are going to do it. Child safety is paramount above all else’. She answered, in a question she was asked on 14 August 2002: ‘I am moving, this government is moving to look after young children in the Territory particularly’. She also went on to make similar observations on 26 February 2003: ‘I am not ashamed of being a bit emotional about that, because saving our kids’ lives should be the highest priority for this government’.
If the Chief Minister is going to be true to her position, the highest priority, this is a single focus thing in her mind, I ask myself: ‘What is the best way to prevent children from drowning in backyard pools in the Territory if that’s going to happen?’ That is easy. You fill in all the pools. You cut them up, you throw them away, you get rid of them, whatever, but you ban swimming pools in the Northern Territory. That is an absurd situation, and not even the Chief Minister would contemplate that. So she says, already, philosophically at least, that she is prepared to back away from the best way to protect children.
So what is the standard she applies? The standard she applies to protect children is the Australian Standard. No ifs, no buts, no questions. The Australian Standard was the only standard which would apply. Now, that is not filling in spas, that is not banning pools - already she has acknowledged that there has to be a balance between lifestyle and child safety. That is not an outrageous suggestion or assertion. If we make child safety the absolute paramount across a raft of issues, our community and society would look quite different.
The fact is the act of pursuing safety issues is a matter of balance. The Chief Minister came to a point where she said: ‘This is my standard, the Australian Standard pool fencing, this is the standard to which I am wedded, to which I hug myself and you nitpickers can go away because I am here to protect children’. And she said it again today, she said it again during questions in this House, and again in the 2003 amendment brought to this House.
I accept that the Chief Minister is trying to protect children, but if that is what she is wedded to, if that is what she so concretely believes, then she has effectively told this parliament that, ‘Oh, my God, now I am going to have to try to water this down to make this more applicable to the lifestyle of Northern Territorians’. Well, she has either demonstrated herself to be emotional and rash in introducing legislation in this House and leading her government, or she has decided that kids’ lives are expendable for political purposes.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker. That does go beyond the pale to accuse the Chief Minister of making a decision that ‘kids’ lives are expendable’, when the whole point of this is to save lives.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I do think that was inappropriate. Member for Macdonnell, I do ask you to withdraw that.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr Burke interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, member for Nhulunbuy, order, both of you!
Mr ELFERINK: May I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker?
Mr Stirling: You have been asked to withdraw. You are challenging the Speaker’s ruling. Take a walk! She has made a ruling.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Clearly, Madam Speaker, the government is sensitive about this particular issue.
Mr STIRLING: I have not heard a withdrawal, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes he did, he did.
Mr ELFERINK: I did withdraw it, you goose. Sit down!
Mr Kiely: Stop yelling and you will hear.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: This is the way you address other people; I am addressing you in the same fashion. Do not stand there and look like an insulted little puppy.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: If this is going to be the level of debate in this House, then some of you will leave. You are getting quite disorderly and out of hand. Do not just jump to your feet and speak without waiting for me to acknowledge you. All be warned. Member for Macdonnell, you have the floor.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, obviously the Chief Minister believes that either she has to act rationally in relation to these sorts of things and broach no consideration or argument, or she considers public safety an expendable issue for political purposes. I am frustrated in the extreme to have to sit here and go through this process again because this Chief Minister was so steadfast in not listening to the issues that were being raised originally.
The administration of the act is not working. There are increasing queues and delays being caused and forced upon people trying to sell and rent their properties. In fact, that was the reason that this Chamber had to readdress this issue in 2003. Again, she was warned that this was going to happen. It is not like this has come out of a vacuum like a meteor from space. This was actually identified to her in the second reading process and through the committee stages of this debate in 2002.
‘No compromise would be broached, no compromise would be accepted. This was an issue of child safety. No compromise on child safety’. That was the mantra; that was the chant. ‘That is what we are going to do and this is a courageous thing’. I can admire that. I could admire that in a politician who was prepared to stand up and say: ‘I will not back down on an issue’. However, unfortunately, her position now has somewhat changed. Where is the no back down? Where is the no, I am going to stand by public safety and child safety issues? It has evaporated into the ether for political purposes.
There are significant differences of view within the community and the bureaucracy and the way that the act is being policed. The approval process had taken so long in some cases that the dates for transfer of properties were missed. This is not the only example. Not only have the dates for transfers of property been missed, but people take bridging finance from time to time, and that bridging finance has the purpose of being able to make these sorts of deals go ahead. However, they are expensive to organise and to maintain. It is worrying in the extreme that, in at least one case that I am aware of, a person has paid about $1000 in extra fees for bridging finance because of the long delay.
Is that a compensatable item? There are some questions I have to ask during the debate later on. Is that going to be one of the compensatable items that we can get some money for? Is the devaluation of land because the amenity of a person’s backyard has been changed by a pool fence going to be an item that is compensatable? These are problems with the administration of the act, and these are things that the Chief Minister is now asking us to fix in spite of the fact that she was warned of them.
There is concern and confusion out there as to what exactly the incentive schemes are. It has never been particularly clear. There is concern and confusion in all sorts of places, in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, as to where the incentive money goes and how much you get. We were going to be promised a certain amount to build a fence, but then the standard of the fence had changed because we would only give compensation to a fraction of a fence of a particular standard. It started to smell and look shonky, like cheap political tricks, and - lo and behold! - why? Because that is exactly what it was.
The government not only said that child safety is vitally important to us, but we also are going to spend as little money as we possibly can on it and transfer as much of the pain to the person who possesses the pool and the spa. One of the reasons that this government caused so much grief out there is that the processes they engaged in were effectively an indirect tax on pool and spa owners, ‘We are going to make the law. You are going to come up to a safety standard. We are going to put as little into this as we possibly can, only enough to make it look like we are being generous’. But the moment someone drilled into it, it was not that generous. It was very tight-fisted.
Madam Speaker, I have touched on the fact that the inspectors were tied down by the act. Here are these poor inspectors who are expected to go out, police this act, and that is exactly what they were required to do, police the act. In spite of the fact that in 2003 the Chief Minister said, ‘Inspectors: that’s the lowest sort of level of enforcement you could possibly have’, and that is present in the debate before this House in 2003, ‘An inspector is hardly a policing body’. The fact is that if you give a person a legislative function to do and powers to enforce that legislative function, it is a policing function. You can call it a ‘marshmallow’ if you like; it does not change the fact that it is a policing function. These inspectors were caught in a position where they had to go into peoples’ backyards with a power of entry, where necessary, and effect inspections on backyard pools.
This is something that the Chief Minister was warned about. She knew that this was going to be a problem. Her response to it was saying, ‘Oh, it’s all going to be warm and fuzzy. It’s all going to be sweetness and light. Don’t worry about that’, and yet, in a press release the other day, she said, ‘The inspectors are no longer going to be called inspectors. They are going to called advisors’. But here is the question she did not answer in her little press release: are these advisors going to have power of entry? Are these advisors still going to inspect pools and those sorts of things? We watch and wait – and rather than brief us on it and those sorts of things, let us go straight into the second reading debate here in the parliament and rush it all through again. Rushing has caused these problems, and now we find ourselves in the invidious situation that if we do not rush to fix them then these problems will continue.
There is a lack of consultation on the details of the legislation that is going to be introduced, was introduced in 2003, and the original legislative package of 2002. This was the government that went to Territorians at the last election saying, ‘Honest. Open. Accountable’. It is in their policy document. What did that mean? Consultation. They were going to talk to people and so far, consistently, they have not listened. Let us examine that process that they have engaged in. The process has been, ‘We make the announcement and we introduce the legislation. Oh, I’m sorry. How sad; too bad’. Nobody really gets spoken to. ‘We then decide on some amendments in 2003. How sad; too bad’. Nobody gets spoken to. Finally they realise a consultation process might be appropriate, so in December 2003 they announce a review. In January 2004, they advertised for submissions to that review; in January 2004, they hold the review; all in the same month; the review is finalised. As Mr Bob Collins has outlined so perfectly well, quoting Sir Humphrey Appleby, ‘You don’t have a review until you know what the answers of that review are’. Those are the answers that this Chief Minister is bringing before the House today.
Madam Speaker, this Chief Minister has failed Territorians not because she wants to protect children, but she has failed Territorians because she has failed to consult, failed to listen to warnings, failed to follow this processes of this parliament in a decent and open manner, and she has betrayed Territorians’ trust, betrayed it in the sense that she has not consulted with them, and she has not held good for the contract for which she purchased their votes. At the end of the day, this Chief Minister needs to be condemned by this parliament for failing to consult with Territorians and act in a decent way towards Territory people so she could have come up with a workable piece of legislation.
____________________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of students from Henbury Outreach School, which is part of the Casuarina Senior College. They are accompanied by their teachers. On behalf of all members, I bid you a warm welcome. I am quite sure you are finding the debate entertaining.
____________________________
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker when you start to burrow down into the swimming pool issues and the historic concerns that have been expressed as far back as the early 1990s, you find some interesting stuff. If I had the opportunity earlier, I would have been able to inform members opposite of the way in which we propose to bring about changes to make it better and continue to ensure that we buy parents time and that we stop the abhorrent record that we have had over the last 10 years. In fact, it was mentioned this morning by the Chief Minister in earlier debate that we have not had one drowning in the last 12 months, since the introduction, and we need to touch wood …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Just hang on. You might learn something. You might learn something soon if you stop being rude. I will try to educate you a little bit because you are culprits; you are culprits that need to be exposed.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: All members! No cross-Chamber chatter, please. Get on with the debate.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, my apologies. They tend to get a bit excited when the bucket is rattled.
The hypocrisy of the people on the other side of the Chamber is breathtaking. Why? Here they are, grandstanding on pools, yet they have blood on their hands.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr AH KIT: Blood on their hands over this issue.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr DUNHAM: Quite rightly, the Deputy Chief Minister pointed out that in this debate, to be talking about the deaths of children is offensive. For the minister to continue in this vein, I think he should be pulled up.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I hope that you were not continuing that line of debate. I would suggest that you do not continue that way. I have to admit I did not hear what you said.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, they have a very bad track record, and I will come to that shortly. If we go back and have a look, as I said, at some of historic discussions, we find that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Greatorex, who was, as we know, a minister in the former CLP government and a former Alice Springs town councillor, said in this House just after he was elected:
In relation to pool fencing, there is an Australian Standard which local councils can use to frame their by-laws.
Why there are such diverse by-laws in relation to pool fencing is beyond me. My concern is that by-laws are
not standardized and that some councils are not policing their by-laws stringently enough.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, I will turn sideways. I will finish the quote:
- There is no point at all in enacting by-laws if they are not policed.
We then go and have a look at June 1996 when the Coroner presented findings on the death by drowning of five children in residential pools in the Northern Territory over 1995 and 1996. Included in the report’s recommendations was the one that suggested a working party consisting of representatives of the government and local government together with other stakeholders should be convened. That working party convened in November 1996 and met again in August 1997. The Department of Local Government carried out considerable research and the working party held a workshop in November 1997 to finalise recommendations that were presented to government. Two of the key recommendations that were put to government were, and I quote:
(a) that there should be overarching legislation enacted by the Territory for the regulation of swimming pools; and
The government of the day, the CLP, rejected these recommendations. They trashed the work of the group that was formed as a result of a Coronial inquiry and they wimped out on pool safety. And they have been doing it ever since.
If you go back to 1996-97, from memory, the then Chief Minister was Shane Stone. No doubt, I believe in that Cabinet, when the Cabinet submission came forward, there would have been minister Dunham, minister Burke, minister Baldwin, and maybe I can jog their memories a bit, because they were there and took the decision to trash the Cabinet submission.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was never a minister in the Shane Stone government.
Mr AH KIT: They are now grandstanding here, saying how we have it wrong, but they do not tell us that they knocked this back, they rejected it. ‘Oh, this is too hard for us, let us get out of this, let somebody else do it, we are not going anywhere near this, we are not going to touch this’. That is why I refer to their hypocrisy.
For three years in a row, the annual reports of the Department of Local Government promised the public of the Northern Territory decent, overarching legislation on pool fencing for the Northern Territory. Indeed, in 1999-2000, the promise to Territorians was, and I quote: ‘Introduce and implement new legislation relating to swimming pool fencing’. What did you do, members opposite? Sweet nothing.
This is not just a censure against the Chief Minister, it is an attempt to censure and condemn the good work by the public servants.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: You say oh, oh, oh! Every time you get an opportunity to belt up the public servants you go for it.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Member for Goyder, we know what he said: ‘They are pool police’. He said it in the paper, he said it here. You support that, you all support that they are pool police. You do not understand that they are hard working public servants who are there to do the work and carry out the letter of the law in regards to the legislation. I had morning tea with them recently. I sat down and had a chat with them about the good work that they have done, and to not feel disheartened and to not take …
A member: And then you sacked them.
Mr AH KIT: None them are going to be sacked. Well, if you heard what I had to say in the second reading speech you might have a different view, but that is not what you are talking about here, you want to play politics. That is all right, that is what we are here for.
They choose, when it suits them, to belt up on public servants. We do not do that on this side of the House. We understand the work they have to do in carrying out their job. These public servants have been working in the front line and doing a great job. They understand that government wishes to bring about changes. That is what we are going to be doing with my introduction of this bill and for the debate next Thursday evening.
Those people who have been working in the Swimming Pool Fencing Unit have given advice to 13 000 people. They have worked on the review and have listened to what the people of the Territory, their fellow citizens, had to say. We consulted in 2002 and ever since. The opposition consulted back in 1996 and, as I said, did nothing. We listened and continue to listen. The opposition, as we know, were deaf to community needs in this regard. We acted and continue to act. Those on the other side did absolutely nothing but try to hide their indecisiveness and lack of intestinal fortitude in wanting to do something in regards to the number of children drowning in the Northern Territory.
When I introduced the Swimming Pool Fencing Act I said that it should be reviewed after 12 months of operation. During the year, I advised many people and stakeholders that, if they had concerns about specific provisions, then they should bring them forward so that they could be taken into account when the act was reviewed. I announced the review on 19 December 2003, and that was followed up by advertisements in NT media on 3 and 6 January 2004. Submissions closed on the 21 January 2004.
The staff of the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs were in an excellent position to conduct a review. I am in a fortunate position of having many excellent staff within the department and, over the last 12 months they have had, as I said, over 13 000 interactions with pool owners. In addition to the 43 submissions to the review, these interactions have been very important in shaping the recommendations in the report.
The simple truth is that this government, unlike our predecessors, is not so arrogant as to not admit our mistakes.
Mr Dunham: Are you apologising too? Two apologies!
Mr AH KIT: The Chief Minister has said it on behalf of government. One wonders, when the member for Drysdale interjects once again, how many times did they, in their 26 years, admit that they had it wrong? How many times did they have the guts to stand up in this Chamber and say: ‘Sorry, we got it wrong, we are going to fix it’? How many times? How many? Sorry, sorry, sorry.
In the case of pool fencing, our objectives were, and remain, protecting our children. This government heeded a call for uniformity and standard legislation to protect the most vulnerable in our community. While the opposition has argued that swimming pool fencing legislation should lie with local government and there is no need for uniformity, the Darwin City Council, in its response to the 1996 inquest stated:
- The Northern Territory government has repeatedly declined to require pool fencing standards to be included in
the Building Code, or to play a role in the regulation of the fencing of private swimming pools, despite approaches
from both the community at large, and the Northern Territory Local Government Association.
The CLP has been aware of this issue. In 1994, the member for Katherine, now departed from this Chamber, made comment on this during a ministerial statement on child safety in the Northern Territory. I quote Mike Reed. He said:
- The incidence of pool accidents is an issue of major concern to the Northern Territory government. Pool owners
should be encouraged to take all possible steps to prevent children dying in their pools. Kidsafe encourages pool
owners to surround their pool with isolation or separation fencing, and a self-closing gate that meets the
Australian Standards.
We admit the pathway we chose was wrong. However, that is more that could be said about the opposition when they were on this side of the Chamber. We know from their public comments that they support safer pools for our children, and they know in their hearts that this can only be achieved through a consistent standard applied across the Territory.
As I said before, we admit the pathway we chose was wrong. We have listened to Territorians and acknowledged the frustrations that many have experienced, and the kinds of frustrations that have led many to not take any action to improve safety standards at all. For this, we have no hesitation, as I said, in apologising to the community. We now seek to engage with the community, and gain their support for a greater level of personal responsibility in attaining and maintaining safety around residential pools. We are not walking away from the difficulties of pool fencing legislation, as the previous government, as I said, did for so many years at the cost of so many lives.
I am pleased to bring to this House legislation that provides our children with a safer community; something that the opposition, I repeatedly said in my debate …
Mr Burke: Garbage.
Mr AH KIT: You say rubbish …
Mr Burke: Garbage! You are self-certifying. How can you call that a standard? What absolute garbage. At least there were by-laws in place before. Now you have self-certifying.
Mr AH KIT: I pick up on the interjection …
Members interjecting..
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Burke: Territorians can self-certify and be self-liable. What garbage!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr AH KIT: Can you tell us, member for Brennan, in debate – and I encourage you, I invite you, and minister Baldwin back in those days, and minister Dunham, I am going to be waiting with bated breath for your contribution to the debate, because it will be very interesting the reasons why you chose to do nothing and why your Cabinet decided to not act at all.
Madam Speaker, it is likely that the CLP will, predictably, attempt to play politics with this legislation to their shame. They know that they should have acted on this years ago but did not. They know it will be legislation that they now cannot turn their backs on. They should actively and constructively engage with the process and support legislation that will save lives.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the censure motion be agreed to? Member for Greatorex.
Mr HENDERSON: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The convention for censure motions is that there are two speakers from both sides. That has been agreed to. I move the motion be put.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be out.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, you recognised me. I am ready to take part in the debate. The Leader of Government Business gets up now and starts quoting chapter and verse on conventions when previously he embarked on flaunting every convention there is in the book.
Members: It was agreed. Talk you your whip!
Dr LIM: Either we stick to the convention or we do not.
Mr Henderson: Don’t you guys talk to each other?
Dr LIM: Thank you very much. Shall I proceed, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: No. The question is that the motion be put.
Dr Lim: Another gag, another gag!
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 13 Noes 10
- Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mrs Miller
Ms Scrymgour Mr Mills
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 10 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mrs Miller Ms Martin
Mr Mills Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Procedural Status of Government Business, Swimming Pool Legislation
Procedural Status of Government Business, Swimming Pool Legislation
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before we go on with government business, I need to make a statement regarding what happened this morning so you know exactly where we are. I want to clarify the proceedings that happened in the Chamber this morning for the purpose of the official record, and so that all members are aware of the current status of proceedings in respect of the Swimming Pool Safety Bill 2004, (Serial 206).
Members will recall that immediately following Ministerial Reports, I called on minister Ah Kit who, in accordance with the proposed procedural arrangements, sought leave to present a bill without notice. On two occasions, I sought an indication from members of whether leave was granted. On the second occasion, I did not hear any dissenting voice and accordingly called upon the minister and he proceeded to present the bill.
The bill was then read a first time by the Clerk, and the minister, in accordance with normal practice, proceeded to move a motion that the bill be read a second time. At that stage, the member for Macdonnell raised a point of order to the effect that leave had not been previously granted to the minister to present the bill.
After further discussion on this point of order, it was my decision to recommit to the Assembly the question for leave for the minister to present the bill without notice. At that stage, leave was not granted and the minister thereupon moved for the suspension of standing orders to enable him to present the bill forthwith.
The motion for the suspension of standing orders was debated and the Leader of Government Business, minister Henderson, moved the question be now put. The Assembly divided and the question was resolved in the affirmative. The question for the suspension of standing orders was then put and passed on voices.
Prior to the minister being called on again to present the bill, the Leader of the Opposition rose and moved for the suspension of standing orders to move a censure motion relating to the Chief Minister. The Leader of Government Business, pursuant to Standing Order 95, accepted the censure motion. Accordingly, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Mills, moved the censure motion, which was debated. The Leader of Government Business moved that the question be now put. The Assembly divided and the question was resolved in the affirmative. The question on the motion of censure of the Chief Minister was put and negatived on the division immediately before the suspension for lunch.
Accordingly, taking into account all that has happened, the Assembly is now at the stage where standing orders have been suspended to enable minister Ah Kit to present the bill. I now call on the minister.
SWIMMING POOL SAFETY BILL
(Serial 206)
(Serial 206)
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.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to introduce the Swimming Pool Safety Bill 2004 to the House. This government is strongly committed to improving water safety in the Northern Territory and to reduce the appalling incidents of death through drowning. Water safety must be addressed on a range of fronts: through public education and awareness campaigns; encouraging people to swim; and effective barriers for our pools and spas. Barriers around pools and spas are just one in a complement of measures to ensure pool safety and minimise pool drownings. Fencing provides an important barrier to the pool and gives those who care for children more time to react, providing the safest possible environment for children in and around water.
The Northern Territory has the highest drowning rate in the nation. In the last ten years, over 100 Territory families have experienced the trauma of a desperate rush to get health care for a child who had made it into a backyard pool. That is why we have legislated to protect our youngest and most vulnerable.
In response to our, at times, challenging environment, the Northern Territory has one of the highest ratio of pool ownership in urban centres. In developing the legislation in 2002, we took into account that there were already pool fencing requirements in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs and Jabiru. We assumed that a very high percentage of the pool owners would have expected to have a reasonable barrier to their backyard pools and that all of these pools should have been capable of automatic registration under the new legislation. Therefore, when people wanted to sell or let their properties, then the upgrade to the Australian Standard should have required relative minor effort for most. A generous incentive scheme was established to assist people to upgrade.
How wrong we were, Madam Speaker. Less than half the pools in Palmerston actually met the standard that previously applied and, in Darwin, over 80% of pools did not meet the standards that the Darwin City Council said it was applying. Since the infancy of the introduction of this new legislation, councils have been too interested in playing politics rather than be up-front with their knowledge that there was a high rate of non-compliance and confusion in the application of the by-laws. This was recognised as early as 23 November 1994 by the opposition. The then recently elected member for Greatorex, a former member of the Alice Springs Town Council, stated to parliament, and I quote:
- In relation to pool fencing, there is an Australian Standard which local councils can use to frame their by-laws.
Why there are such diverse by-laws in relation to pool fencing is beyond me … My concern is that by-laws are
not standardised, and that some councils are not policing their by-laws stringently enough. There is no point at
all in enacting by-laws if they are not policed.
However, when it came to take action, the previous government did nothing and let the status quo remain. In July 1996, the Coroner handed down findings in relation to five infant drownings that had occurred in 1995 and 1996. Included in the report’s recommendations was one that suggested that a working party consisting of representatives of the government and local government together with other stakeholders should be convened. That working party convened in November 1996, and met again in August 1997. The Department of Local Government carried out considerable research, and the working party held a workshop in November 1997 to finalise recommendations that were presented to government. Two of the key recommendations that were put to the government were:
(a) that there should be overarching legislation enacted by the Territory for the regulation of swimming pools; and
The government of the day rejected these recommendations, they trashed the work of the group that was formed as the result of a coronial inquiry, and they wimped out on pool safety. Acting in good faith, many pool owners had thought that their pool fencing was pretty close to the Australian Standard, and they should have no real problem with the new legislation. In fact, in the majority of cases in Darwin and Palmerston, they fell below the previous council standard. So instead of a simple registration process followed by an easy upgrade to Australian Standards, many pool owners faced a difficult and frustrating time that many believed, after all their expense and effort, did not deliver a safe pool.
The result has been the development of strong community concern about the precision and technical requirements of the standards that are being applied. There is no doubt that the Australian Standards are very precise. Starting from scratch, with the installation of a new pool, the Australian Standards are relatively simple to apply. However, when applied to pre-existing backyard pools or spas, that precision often meant pool owners had to undertake works that they believed did not increase the safety of their pool. These issues have muddied the waters and created a debate focussed on fence heights and door latches rather than the bigger issue we are trying to address through pool fencing legislation, which is preventing toddler drownings.
Government wants to focus on pools which have no fencing or perimeter fencing only. The debate to date has largely focussed on pools which are effectively safe and are missing the Australian Standard by a couple of centimetres. The review, which I will soon discuss, made recommendations about how government could improve the targeting and workability of the legislation.
I said when I introduced the Swimming Pool Fencing Act that it should be reviewed after 12 months of operation. During the year, I advised many people and stakeholders that if they had concerns about specific provisions, then they should bring them forward so that they could be taken into account when the act was reviewed. I announced the review on 19 December 2003. That was followed up by advertisements in key media outlets on 3 and 6 January 2004. Submissions closed on 21 January 2004. The staff of the Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs were in an excellent position to conduct the review. I am in the fortunate position of having many excellent staff within my department and, over the last 12 months, they have had over 13 000 interactions with pool owners. In addition to the 43 submissions to the review, these interactions have been very important in shaping the recommendations in the report.
The Acting Chief Executive of my department has finalised the review, and he provided me with a report dated 2 February 2004. This report, together with government’s response, was publicly released on 12 February 2004. The key finding of the review is, first and foremost, that a critical assumption underpinning the act is wrong - that the standard of existing pools would closely correlate with council standards and allow for easy upgrade to the Australian Standard. This low level of correlation meant the foundation for easy upgrade to the higher standard was not there. The review also found that there remains strong support in the community for effective barriers around backyard swimming pools, however, there is a strong demand for greater flexibility in the application of standards and for pool owners to have greater personal responsibility for determining that their backyard pools or spas are safe.
The Australian Standards were seen as too precise for easy application to many existing pools where the pool is often integral to the lifestyle of residents. While people want pools to be safe, they also want to be allowed to set up their backyard to suit their lifestyle. It is a lot easier to incorporate fencing where a new pool is installed than where there has been a pool for many years.
For a law to be widely applied and enforced, there must be a high level of acceptance by the community. It is our responsibility, as law makers, to ensure that the legislation we put forward reflects community values and standards. It is not sensible to try to force the community to do something to which they have a strong objection. It has become clear that the current level of standard and method of operation of the current Swimming Pool Fencing Act is not acceptable for existing pools and, in general, unacceptable to the majority of the community.
The review makes a series of recommendations for change to the legislation and its operation. Key recommendations propose:
a new standard for pools constructed prior to January 2003 that maintains the principle of ensuring that there
is an effective barrier in place for children under five years of age, but allows pool owners to make their own
assessment of the level of compliance;
maintains the application of the Australian Standards, as modified, to suit Territory conditions to pools constructed
since 2003;
the move to an essentially advisory role rather than an inspectorial role for pre-2003 pools in the implementation of
the revised system;
the extension of the grants system to give people more time to upgrade their pools to either the new standard or the
modified Australian Standard, with an increased amount available to encourage pool owners to upgrade to the modified Australian Standard;
a continuing marketing campaign aimed at providing factual information to the community and target groups; and
the purchaser and vendor of a property will be able to jointly or individually declare there is no pool on a property.
The government has accepted the findings of the review and the Swimming Pool Safety Bill gives effect to the recommendations that have been accepted. The strategy that underpins the Swimming Pool Safety Bill is straightforward:
all pools on premises under 1.8 hectares constructed since January 2003 must have barriers that comply with the
Australian Standard as modified for use in the Northern Territory;
all pools on premises under 1.8 hectares constructed prior to January 2003 must meet either a defined Community
Safety Standard or the modified Australian Standard at the time of sale or lease;
pool owners will be able to make a declaration that their pool meets the Community Safety Standard - there will be
no automatic inspection, however, pool owners will be able to seek advice from pool safety advisors if they wish;
there will be significant financial incentives provided to those who upgrade to the Community Safety Standard or the
modified Australian Standard; and
ongoing information and awareness campaigns relating to the maintenance of pool safety standards by pool owners
and water safety education and awareness.
The bill before the House proposes the repeal and replacement of the Swimming Pool Fencing Act. While many of the provisions of the act remain, repeal and replacement will provide a tidier, more easily understood piece of legislation. The bill I am presenting today strikes an effective balance between protecting young children and community acceptance of child water safety responsibility. I believe that this approach will generate the community support necessary for it to be effective.
I will now turn to some of the key provisions of the bill. As I indicated before, the overall aim of the legislation is for improved swimming pool fencing standards to give those who care for children more time to react to prevent a child drowning. The legislation will apply to the fencing of outdoor swimming pools and spas in the Territory. The legislation will not apply to public swimming pools, dams or waterways, or to pools located on land occupied by the Crown, statutory corporations, councils, or the Jabiru Town Development Authority unless the property is used solely for residential purposes.
The majority of definitions are similar to those which they replace. The bill will continue to have the same coverage as the act that is being replaced, and the meaning of ‘swimming pool’ remains essentially the same. It should be noted that the definition of ‘swimming pool’ now excludes a pool that is within a building, provided that all points of access to the house have doors, gates or windows that are self-closing and self-latching. The meaning of ‘swimming pool barrier’ now allows for the prescription of things that might be a barrier.
All new pools constructed after 1 January 2003 must comply with either the Australian Standards as modified, or a non-standard safety provision, both of which will continue to require the approval of the Pool Safety Authority for new pools. Owners who wish to seek compliance under the non-standard safety provision must first seek approval in advance of construction. Existing pools must be at the Community Safety Standard at the time of sale or lease.
A significant change to the Australian Standards is made in these provisions in that a neighboring property will no longer affect the compliance of a pool owner’s backyard pool or spa. Where a barrier is comprised of a fence shared with a neighbour, there is a requirement that the owners or occupiers of the neighbouring property be advised that the shared fence will be utilised as part of the barrier to the pool. A pool owner should only be responsible for their own backyard. Likewise, a neighbour should be responsible for making their own determinations about the safety of their backyards. Pool owners have made it clear over the last 12 months, and through the review process, that they want greater personal responsibility for the safety of their backyards. People who have small children on their premises, or have them visiting, are responsible for taking sensible precautions to ensure that their backyard remains safe. Where the danger next door is a pool, the neighbour will have that brought to their attention.
The implementation of the Community Safety Standard will provide for an effective barrier which must be designed, constructed, sited and maintained to prevent a child obtaining unsupervised access to the pool. This principle will be applied in a manner that is practicable and reasonable in the circumstances. Guidelines for the application of the Community Safety Standard will be specified by regulation. As stated previously, provision made under the current act for non-standard safety provisions will continue to apply.
A financial assistance scheme to assist and encourage existing pool owners to upgrade their barriers to either comply with the Community Safety Standard or the modified Australian Standard will also be prescribed under this bill. It is currently proposed that the government will provide a cash grant of up to 75% of the cost of upgrading or installing a fence to a maximum of $3000 for the Community Safety Standard, and $4000 for the modified Australian Standard. The new grant scheme will provide pool owners with a significant incentive to ensure their pool complies with the new legislation sooner rather than later. Not only is this an extremely generous incentive, it should be noted that the Territory is still the only jurisdiction in Australia to offer financial assistance of any sort to off-set the costs of achieving regulated standards. This clearly highlights our government’s commitment to improving pool safety throughout the Territory.
The government believes that the new grant scheme is the best method to maximise compliance by pool owners with the standards as quickly as possible. In keeping with this, we also intend to reward those who have already done the right thing and upgraded their pools. We will ensure that anyone who received assistance under the Early Registration Incentive Scheme will be no worse off than if they had waited and received assistance under the Safe Pool Grant Scheme.
In regards to compliance certificates and acknowledgement notices, significant changes have been made to the provisions that previously applied to this area. Essentially, the changes are:
that the Community Safety Standard will constitute the base minimum standard applicable to pools constructed
prior to January 2003;
compliance with the Community Safety Standard will be assessed by the pool owner and a declaration made in
an approved form;
declarations must be provided to the Pool Safety Authority which will then provide the pool owner with a
declaration acknowledgement notice;
all pools constructed since 1 January 2003 will require a certificate from the authority attesting to compliance
with the modified Australian Standards or the non-standard safety provision; and
there will be a compulsory inspection regime for new pools only.
The new declaration system for owners of pre-exiting backyard pools or spas reflects the community demand for greater responsibility. I note that the opposition appear out of step with the community on this issue.
Mr Dunham: Oh, really?
Mr AH KIT: This is unusual for a conservative party which normally supports the principle of community responsibility. The member for Drysdale has been reported as making comments that the declaration system will increase a pool owner’s liability. This is deceptive and misleading. Under any pool fencing regime, individual circumstances have always dictated liability. Pool owners who declare in good faith that their pool complies with the Community Safety Standard will not be any more liable now than they have been in the past under any under an inspectorial regime. Any statements to the contrary are reprehensible and made solely to stir up fear in the community.
Madam Speaker, no pool owner should be worried about signing a declaration form if they believe they are acting in good faith. If they are unsure about the effectiveness of their barriers, or not sure if they correctly understand the Community Safety Guidelines, they can seek free advice from a Pool Safety Advisor.
With the introduction of the new Community Safety Standard as the base standard pre-exiting pools must meet when selling or leasing, there is no longer a need for pool owners to register their pools against the previous council standard. The process of registration has been replaced by a system of compliance. For those people who have registered their pools with the Pool Fencing Unit over the last 12 months, we will advise them what the changes mean to them. For those people who have registered new pools constructed after 1 January 2003 we will refund their registration fee.
For pools installed after 1 January 2003, we have always required that the modified Australian Standards be met. This has not changed in this bill. The policy intent remains the same and the modified Australian Standard continues to provide the benchmark for appropriate safety standards within the Territory.
The bill provides for the issue of interim compliance certificates for new pools and requires pool owners and installers not to construct a pool until after an interim certificate is issued. Compliance certificates to the modified Australian Standard will be compulsory for all new pools and pools installed after 1 January 2003. These compliance certificates will only be issued following a satisfactory assessment by a Pool Safety Advisor.
The bill also provides for increased personal responsibility for existing pool owners. Pool owners will be able to declare that their pool barrier complies with the new Community Safety Standard. Upon declaration, a pool owner will receive an acknowledgement notice from the authority, which can be used to allow lease or sale of a property. Pool Safety Advisors will be available to provide free advice and recommendations to assist people in understanding, reaching and maintaining the new Community Safety Standard.
In regard to the sale or residential leasing of premises with swimming pools, as I indicated when I announced this review, we want to make the pool fencing process simpler and workable. Of particular concern previously was the sale, transfer or lease of premises with swimming pools. The following issues have been addressed in this bill:
inconsistency in application of the law to pools located on common property, that is, unit complexes;
a provisional compliance certificate will now be sufficient to allow the transfer of title as would be required
in the case of a marital split or separation, death in the family or removal of CEO Housing from NT government
home loans;
a provisional compliance certificate will be available to allow a purchaser to assume responsibility for upgrading
a pool to the appropriate standard within a set period of time; and
no-pool inspections to be replaced by a joint declaration to be signed by purchaser and vendor.
As with the current act, the point of sale and residential lease of a property will be retained as triggers for compliance. However, existing pool owners will now have the option to comply with either the Community Safety Standard or the modified Australian Standard to satisfy this requirement. Pools on common properties such as within a unit complex will be required to comply within six months of sale of a unit within the complex.
In regards to the obligations related to swimming pools, the bill adopts a long-term approach to increased pool fencing standards and includes provisions to ensure that once achieved, compliance with the relevant standard is maintained. The bill also provides comfort for councils by ensuring they are not liable if a boundary fence that separates private property and council land is used as part of the barrier.
In the administration, there is power to delegate functions under this bill to local governing bodies and others. Whilst this is not planned at this time, it may be considered in the future following the establishment of an effective system.
It should also be noted that this bill refers to Pool Safety Advisors rather than Pool Fencing Inspectors, as in the current act. This name change reflects the different role that staff will undertake in the future, providing a greater emphasis on pool safety advice and education rather than pool fencing direction.
Mr Dunham: They can still kick the doors down.
Mr AH KIT: You can’t help yourself.
Madam Speaker, the bill continues to provide for powers of entry and inspection for Pool Safety Advisors, and these remain balanced with the requirement for a Justice to issue a search warrant. Previous debate concerning the entry and enforcement provisions of the current act has, at times, bordered on the ridiculous. Let me pre-empt such a discussion this time by stating that these are standard provisions common in Northern Territory legislation, which provides for inspector-type functions, for example, Environmental Health or Building Board inspectors. It is important to note that despite the hysteria of the opposition during last year’s committee stage debate, in the 12 months the current act has been operating not once have we had to call upon these provisions.
In regard to reviews and appeals, the appeal process has been reviewed and modified. The Review Committee, established under the current act, will be retained, however, a second tier appeal to the Lands and Mining Tribunal is no longer considered necessary. During the 12 months’ operation of the Swimming Pool Fencing Act 2002, not one appeal was heard by the Review Committee. It is clear that most difficulties can be resolved by administrative processes through the Pool Safety Unit, the Pool Safety Authority, with a further avenue of appeal open through retention of the Review Committee.
In regard to miscellaneous areas in the bill, regulations will be prescribed under the bill to provide for matters that are necessary for carrying out or giving effect to this act. Initially, this will include detailing the new Community Safety Standard and the new financial scheme, called the Safe Pool Grant. The passage of this bill will result in the repeal and replacement of the Swimming Pool Fencing Act 2002.
We appreciate the substantial nature of the changes proposed in this bill. However, they are both important and necessary to achieve a safer environment for children around backyard swimming pools. A widespread public education and community awareness campaign will be conducted prior to the new laws coming into effect. In addition, there will be an ongoing water safety education and awareness program to ensure the community does not become complacent about issues of water safety.
There will be some who will inevitably describe this legislation as a back-flip by the government. Me do a back-flip? I would like to see that!
We have listened to the community and responded by bringing our legislation into line with community expectations on pool safety and personal responsibility. There is no question that the pool laws had to be revisited after the experiences of the last 12 months. What I am introducing today is sensible, more workable legislation. It allows for a greater uniform application of commonsense and provides for more flexibility, while still ensuring that there are effective barriers in place around backyard pools and spas to protect our children.
The principle behind the legislation I am introducing has strong community support. The opposition has indicated that they believe pool fencing is not an issue. The former Leader of the Opposition stated this as recently as 6 February on ABC’s Stateline program, and I quote …
The simple truth is that this government, unlike our predecessors, is not so arrogant as to not admit our mistakes. In the case of pool fencing …
Mr Dunham: You were going to quote it. Where is the quote? You said: ‘And I quote’.
Mr AH KIT: Well, you saw the program.
Mr DUNHAM: No, I want to hear the quote. Because we know what you blokes are like at plagiarising.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr AH KIT: You saw the program.
Mr Dunham: I did not.
Madam SPEAKER: Keep talking to me, minister.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, Madam Speaker. It is very hard not to pick up on interjections …
Madam SPEAKER: I know it is hard.
Mr AH KIT: … from the rude member for Drysdale because he just cannot help himself. I went through the process this morning and explained some of the history to this, which you find hard because you were sitting in the room as, no doubt, a Cabinet minister, so you have your grubby hands all over the historical nature of how this legislation has come about. I watched with interest, because it was not the Leader of the Opposition …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have a convention that has been established in this House that the minister distributes his second reading speech and sticks to the text of that speech.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Minister, please stick to your second reading speech.
Mr AH KIT: I will go back to the second reading speech, and I will not be long because I will not pick up on any interjections or be railroaded by the rude member for Drysdale. Yes, I was going to quote, I am not quoting now, I am going back to what the former Leader of the Opposition stated as recently as 6 February on the ABC Stateline program.
The simple truth is that this government, unlike our predecessors, is not so arrogant as to not admit our mistakes. In the case of pool fencing, our objectives were, and remain, ones of protecting our children. This government heeded the call for uniformity and a standard legislation to protect the most vulnerable in our community. While the opposition has argued that swimming pool fencing legislation should lie with local government and there is no need for uniformity, the Darwin City Council, in its response to the 1996 inquest, stated:
- The Northern Territory government has repeatedly declined to require pool fencing standards to be including in
the Building Code, or to play role in the regulation of the fencing of private swimming pools, despite approaches
from both the community at large and the Northern Territory Local Government Association.
- The incidence of pool accidents is an issue of major concern to the Northern Territory government …. Pool owners
should be encouraged to take all possible steps to prevent children dying in their pools … Kidsafe encourages pool
owners to surround their pool with isolation or separation fencing and a self-closing gate that meets Australian
Standards.
We now seek to engage with them in their support of a greater level of personal responsibility in attaining and maintaining safety around residential pools. We are not walking away from the difficulties of pool fencing legislation as the previous government did for many years, and at the cost of those lives. In fact, in the Department of Local Government Annual Report 1998-99, I bring to members’ notice that under ‘Legislative Change’ they have three dot points. I would like to read them into the Hansard:
introduce and implement new animal welfare legislation;
introduce amendments to the Local Government Act.
That supports the claims that I have made in the introduction of this bill.
I am pleased to bring this legislation to the Assembly. It is about providing our children with a safer community - something, as I have said before, the opposition never did. I am happy to roll up my sleeves and do the hard work that they did not want to at the time. It is likely that the CLP will, predictably, attempt to play politics with the legislation, to their shame. They know they should have acted on this years ago but did not, and they know it will be legislation that they now cannot turn their backs on. They should actively and constructively engage with the process and support legislation that will save lives.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MINING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 191)
Continued from 26 November 2003.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. It is a fairly straight-forward piece of legislation we have before us, and its ambitions are laudable because they flow from National Competition Principles. In a nutshell, they look to set minimum areas of blocks for explorers and they look also to identify that the minerals that are located on that block by the explorer are not distinguished in such a way so that the explorer has to reapply.
I applaud both of those. In fact, I worked under a previous Mining Act where gold was a distinguishing mineral from every other mineral, for instance, as was quarrying for sand and in latter years, so too was uranium. So these minerals took on a life of their own. They had different restrictions, and a different legislative basis for their exploration and mining. I always thought it was a bit silly, particularly in polymetalic provinces such as the Pine Creek geosink line. It is obvious to everybody who ever looks at any of the minerals that come out of there that many, many minerals of an economic basis can be mined. That includes silver, lead, zinc, gold, chromium, and a variety of other minerals.
It is a laudable practice that there should be no distinguishing features about the type of mineral and neither should there be the minister’s requirement to look to larger sizes of block for exploration.
I will point out that it does stick in one’s neck a bit in a small jurisdiction like this to have National Competition Principles come to us to deal with what are really pretty small things when you look at the big issues for mining. When you look at the big issues for mining, this jurisdiction is discriminated against. It is discriminated in the legislation which applies here and the principles which apply here that do not apply anywhere else. Members will not be surprised if I mention the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, an act which definitely impedes mining in this part of the world and definitely does not apply in any other part of Australia. I would think that while we are on the business of level playing fields and making sure that Territory miners have the same basis for exploration and harvesting of their resources elsewhere, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act should come up with a beacon.
It is interesting, too, that the uranium we mine here is different to the uranium that is mined in other places in Australia - in South Australia, there are different legislative regimes - and so too the Crown ownership of minerals. If we really want to talk about National Competition Principles, the cross hairs of our sights should look federally rather than nationally.
I applaud what the minister is doing here. It has come out a good commonsense. I would ask that on behalf of the mining industry that he look at some of these issues, and that he look at rendering the mining industry in the Northern Territory, which is our biggest earner, to be able to compete with those interstate, particularly when it comes to issues like access to Aboriginal land, uranium and Crown ownership of minerals.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his support for this legislation. It is commonsense legislation, removing the restriction for mining and exploration and mineral leases, and not specifying any particular area that miners or mining companies can explore or get mining leases, and also removing restriction of what minerals they can mine in their mineral leases.
What the member said about the National Competition provisions is true. Unfortunately we live in a regime that tends to remove any anti-competitive practices and we have to live with it. As for access to land and the restriction of the Land Rights Act, I want to remind the member that just recently an American company managed to get an agreement with the Northern Land Council under the right to negotiate process in order to obtain access to a significant large area of land south of Larrimah, and between Larrimah and Elliott. When I questioned the Northern Land Council on how the company had the managed to proceed so quickly, they advised me that the American company was very experienced in negotiating with native interests in New Mexico, with American Indians, and they only had to tick certain boxes on their forms. They proceeded to negotiate this successful agreement with the Northern Land Council and the native title holders. It is not impossible to negotiate if there is goodwill with all parties.
I thank again the member for his support. It is a commonsense piece of legislation, and certainly will help the mining companies and the people who are involved in mineral exploration to achieve their target.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
AustralAsia Railway - Completion
AustralAsia Railway - Completion
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, few developments in Australian history have captured the public imagination like the building of the AustralAsia Trade Route, and very few have been so long in the making. We finally have the link that connects Darwin to the rest of the country by rail and the Northern Territory to the rest of the world through our port.
Today, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the thousands of people who shared the dream: the railway workers, the business men and women, the public servants, the politicians and members of the wider Australian community who have played a role in realising this dream of more than 100 years.
As all present would know, South Australians and Territorians have been lobbying for the completion of a transcontinental railway for over a century. The first sod was turned in Port Augusta in 1878. By 1929, railway lines extended as far north as Alice Springs, and, from Darwin, about 500 km south to Larrimah. When South Australia handed control of the Territory to the Commonwealth in 1911, it was in return for a promise to complete the railway. Since Self-Government in 1978, all Territory Chief Ministers have fought to remind the Commonwealth of this promise. It was our first Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, who led the ‘Act of Faith’ campaign. Another among the visionaries was former Minister for the Railway, Barry Coulter, who worked with former Under Treasurer, Dr Neil Conn, and the Railway Executive Group to progress the project. Senior public servants including Paul Tyrrell, then Director of Roads in the Department of Transport and Works, and Larry Bannister worked on the railway project from those early days.
Many groups and individuals from the time of Self-Government undertook studies to progress the railway. This included work by David Hill, the Railway Executive Group, and Canadian Pacific Consulting Services. But it was the Wran Report in 1985 that restored the confidence of Territorians when it found that the railway was not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’.
In the early days of Australian transport, railways were built by governments. These days, the private sector is taking over the role of providing major infrastructure, so for many years, the Northern Territory government tried to woo private sector investors to build the line. Staff of the former Department of Transport and Works provided the analysis that supported the economics of the railway as well as highlighting the benefits to the Territory of linking to the national railway grid.
It was clear that the railway would be built only with government support, recognising the many economic benefits not directly captured by the private sector. In 1996, the Northern Territory government first articulated its vision for Darwin to develop as a multi-modal transport and logistics hub with the new railway as a key plank in that vision. Also at that time, a report by Booz Allen & Hamilton reported a positive cost-benefit ratio of 1.27 in favour of the railway project as a result of the Territory’s increased population, economic activity and freight task.
In 1997, the South Australian and Northern Territory governments established the AustralAsia Rail Corporation after Prime Minister John Howard pledged $100m to match the Territory and South Australian contributions.
Following the Commonwealth agreement to transfer the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line, the scope of the project, a new transport system, became the transfer of the Tarcoola line; the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin line; and the integration of the railway with an inter-modal facility at the new East Arm Wharf in Darwin.
In September 1997, the project was taken to the marketplace as a Build Own Operate and Transfer back development. The resulting 32 expressions of interest provided great confidence in the project. Three short-listed bidders were announced in April 1998: the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium led by Kellogg Brown & Root; the Southern Cross Consortium led by Henry & Walker; and the Northlink Rail Consortium led by Thiess.
Other milestones reached in 1998 were, the berthing of the first ship at Darwin’s new East Arm wharf, and the reaching of an agreement between the Territory government and land councils after 18 months of negotiations on the railway corridor. In June 1999, after detailed evaluation, the Northern Territory and South Australian governments announced the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium as the preferred consortium.
In October 1999, after months of negotiations, the financial terms for the project were settled. The Northern Territory and Commonwealth increased their financial contributions to $165m each and the South Australian government increased its contribution to $150m. This covered part of the shortfall between the preferred consortium’s proposal and the $300m government funding, with the consortium making up the difference. In March 2000, the federal Treasurer approved third party access for a 30 year regime under the National Competition requirements of the Trade Practices Act 1974 overcoming a major impediment to the greenfields project.
On 18 October 2000, the AustralAsia Railway Corporation, the Northern Territory and South Australian governments, and the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium signed an agreement on the commercial terms for the project. There was a major setback in January 2001 when the Hancock Group, a major investor, pulled out of the project, but in March 2001, the three governments agreed on a support package on commercial terms of $79.2m in addition to the already agreed $480m.
The AustralAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly in November 1999, and dealt with a range of matters arising from the due diligence process and planning and construction issues. April 2001 was an historic time, when financial close was reached for the project in Sydney with the signing of more than 300 documents involving 60 parties, with debt and equity finance of about $800m provided by the private sector.
Construction began immediately, coordinated by the consortium’s design and construct body ADrail, with a completion target of April 2004. Prime Minister John Howard, South Australian Premier John Olsen, Territory Chief Minister Denis Burke and Franco Moretti from the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium turned the first sod in Alice Springs on the 17 July 2001, one of those perishingly cold Alice Springs days.
At this point I would like to make special acknowledgement of past government Chief Ministers, and Railway Minister, Barry Coulter, for their dedication and commitment over all those years. To Paul Everingham, Ian Tuxworth, Steve Hatton, Marshall Perron, Shane Stone and to Denis Burke, the former Chief Minister during the last two critical years of negotiations, for reaching that milestone.
As we know, construction remained well ahead of schedule, with a series of milestones demonstrating the enormous power of modern railway construction methods. The first track was laid near Katherine in April 2002. In December 2002, track laying was completed between Tennant Creek and Katherine. In December 2002, the Elizabeth River Bridge, the longest of the six major bridges, was completed and, in September 2003, track laying was completed at East Arm Wharf.
Two million sleepers were laid in record time, over 90 minor and major bridges were built; 146 000 tonnes of rail was carried from OneSteel’s Whyalla plant and 2.8m tonnes of ballast were carried from Katherine and Tennant Creek quarries. Mini-townships appeared and disappeared along the line as modern railway camps marked the progress of construction. And, of course, the realisation of our dreams occurred when the completion certificate was issued by the Independent Certifier on 14 January, in accordance with the Concession Deed between AustralAsia Rail Corporation and the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium.
This railway will open up the north, provide a trade link between Asia and Southern Australia, and boost our economy - not to forget the romance of the greatest train journey of the world in the Ghan. The third one has just arrived at the terminal in Darwin.
I now turn to the historic arrival of the first freight train in Darwin from Adelaide on 17 January. The commencement of commercial operations on the AustralAsia Railway was celebrated with a range of festivities, commencing with the departure from Adelaide on 15 January, where a crowd of 3000 gathered to see the freight train depart on its inaugural journey to Darwin. An enthusiastic crowd of about 1000 greeted the train on its arrival into Alice Springs on 16 January, and a symbolic consignment of Central Australian bush tucker was dispatched on the journey through to Darwin amidst a spectacular water arch send off. The community took advantage of every vantage point to witness the historic passage of the train through the hills to the north of the town.
A huge crowd of 1000 greeted the train at Tennant Creek, on the evening of the 16th where, as part of community celebrations, the FreightLink terminal, called Wakapikari, was officially opened. As a gesture of goodwill to the local community, the original art work of local artist Ruth Dawson, which is featured on one of the FreightLink locomotives, was presented by FreightLink to be displayed at the Arts Council.
The community event conducted at Katherine on the morning of Friday 17th was well attended. I believe about 4000 people from Katherine were there. The freight terminal was officially opened, and artist, Rocque Lee, provided an explanation of the art work featured on the ‘Kurra Kurraka’ locomotive, which is associated with the northern region.
The arrival of the inaugural train at the FreightLink port container terminal was witnessed by a huge crowd of more than 10 000 people who gathered early in the day to be part of the celebrations. The on-site amenities accommodated the large crowd, and family entertainment provided activities in the lead-up to the formal proceedings . The venue afforded the opportunity for the public to witness the arrival of the train in safety, and to view magnificent livery of the locomotives from close quarters.
I congratulate the organisers for delivering an event which enabled so many to participate in this part of history. Particularly noteworthy is the effort of the team from Top End Sounds to provide the infrastructure following the unfortunate incident just a week earlier. The capability of Territorians under adverse conditions was yet again demonstrated by this outstanding achievement. I thank all the volunteers who generously provided their time at the various events to ensure the safety and comfort of those in attendance.
It is important to acknowledge the disappointment felt by a number of Territorians because the first train arrived early. To those Territorians who did miss the event, let me say how sorry I was that not everyone was able to see the arrival. However, I also want to say that all Territorians can celebrate the surge of pride we all so rightly felt when the train arrived.
To the regional committees who coordinated community events, I say thank you for ensuring the celebrations reflected the significance of the railway to each community. The government’s thanks also goes to the Darwin Bus Service and the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment staff who worked to ensure that the crowd were efficiently transported to and from the venue, and to the NT Police who assisted with traffic control and site security. The manner in which the large crowd was managed without injury is testament to the organisation of the event. A special thank you goes to the event coordinating committee, the staff of Protocol and the AustralAsia Railway Corporation. I also want to thank the public for their well natured tolerance, patience and courtesy shown at times when inconvenienced by the consequences of such an enthusiastic response to this historic event.
Just over two weeks later from this event was when the inaugural Adelaide to Darwin Ghan passenger train rolled into Darwin on Tuesday, 3 February 2004. It signalled the start of another new era - this time one of the great opportunities for Territory tourism operators to develop new market opportunities and products. In keeping with the significance of the Ghan passenger service to the Territory, celebratory events were scheduled by Great Southern Rail as the commercial operator in Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Darwin.
My department and the Australasia Railway Corporation also arranged for safe public viewing areas in Alice Springs and the Darwin region to ensure as many Territorians as possible could see the Ghan on its inaugural journey. Of course, many Territorians made their own arrangements to see the Ghan at vantage points all the way from Alice Springs to Darwin, while the celebrations in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin were also attended by thousands of Territorians. The arrival of the Ghan into Darwin on 3 February was a truly historic and memorable occasion.
The successful completion of this historic transcontinental railway could not have been achieved without the commitment and determination of the board, corporation staff, advisers, Territory and South Australian public servants, the three governments, and the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium. Behind these milestones lie an enormous number of hard work and some incredible achievements.
I pay tribute to the unsung heroes of the railway who helped delivered the project. A dedicated team at the AustralAsia Railway Corporation under the leadership of Paul Tyrrell, with the support of Larry Bannister and Alastair Shields, and external advisers and specialists, carved out the negotiations with other governments and the consortium.
The Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, under the leadership of David Ritchie, helped identify sites of significance along the corridor and worked with the government and indigenous communities to ensure their appropriate protection. Close working relationships were developed across government and with the Territory Construction Association, NTISO, and training bodies to maximise local benefits from the project with a local industry and Aboriginal participation plan. The Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development ran training courses for Territory businesses to help with tendering and identification of business opportunities. In excess of 90% of the value of works was awarded to Northern Territory and South Australian companies.
I acknowledge the efforts of David Avery, John Roberts and Ron Levy, who were the principle representatives acting on behalf of traditional owners during negotiations for the acquisition of the 1420 km of land for the railway corridor. The outcomes of these negotiations included the historic Aboriginal Land Agreement, mentioned before. I also thank the team which acted for the government during those 18 months of negotiations. Likewise, I acknowledge the pastoralists and land-holders for helping to make this dream a reality.
Indigenous organisations, particularly the Northern and Central Land Councils, worked with ADrail to ensure indigenous people received accredited training and jobs. One of the most encouraging legacies of the railway is that of the 1450 construction staff and subcontractors working in the field, 130 indigenous Territorians worked on the railway. For this I thank people such as Dave Malone, then with the Territory Construction Association, Bob Cush and Bob Collins from ADrail and liaison staff such as Sean Lange from the Northern Territory Land Council.
Staff from the now Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment helped with engineering studies, land acquisition, port design, identification and protection of heritage sites, surveys and engineering challenges. And going further back in history, people such as former Railway Commissioner, Keith Smith, who always said the rail should be built, and Chief Civil Engineer, Des Smith, who built the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line and surveyed the remaining corridor.
I also thank members of the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium, Halliburton KBR, John Holland, Barclay Mowlem, Macmahon, Genesee & Wyoming - later Australian Railroad Group - and PGA Logistics – later SANT - for their belief in this project, as well as their financiers, planners and construction supervisors for delivering this project three months ahead of time.
In particular, I thank Malcolm Kinniard for his chairmanship of the consortium, who, together with Andrew Fletcher, demonstrated a determined commitment to this public/private sector partnership and resolved a myriad of issues which otherwise could have been an impediment to progressing negotiations.
The construction of the new railway by ADrail saw outstanding progress under the leadership of project director, Al Volpe, ably assisted by construction manager, Kevyn Brown, and Bob Collins and Duncan Beggs who ensured the task of community liaison was given a high priority. Bob Kuch in his capacity as construction superintendent for Asia Pacific Transport, and Franco Moretti as Chief Executive Officer of both Asia Pacific Transport and FreightLink, oversaw the delivery of the infrastructure for this new trade route. Now, Bruce McGowan has embraced the task of making the vision of a major new trade route become a reality. Also critical to the construction of the rail was the role of Brendan Lawson, the Deputy CEO of ARC, the body responsible for overseeing the Territory and South Australia’s governments’ interest in the rail.
There are many many people to be thanked for their contribution, but in particular, I thank those Territory public servants who made significant contributions in a wide variety of capacities. I acknowledge, in addition to those I have already mentioned:
all the staff, past and present, of the AustralAsia Railway Corporation, including Larry Bannister, Brendan Lawson,
Brian O’Gallagher, Maureen Albion, Margo Bellis, Andrew Kirkman, Reg Walters, Sam Hatzivalsamis, Celia Lowry,
Robin Luke, Taryn Long, Kylie Bell, Josephine McGill, John Harris, David Timbrell, Sybille Brautigam, Jane Munday,
Libby Beath, Tracy Jones, Tiffany Stodart and Jim Colvin;
DIPE staff, past and present: Chris Bigg, Ken Hornsby, Dave McHugh, John Pinney, Manfred Rusciska, Ken Grattan,
John Gronow, Neville Jones, Bonnie Kappler-Thompson, Phil Cross, Sue Hakala, David Ritchie, David Jeffrey,
Bev Griffiths, Paul Wharam, Noreen Blakley, Vic Stephens, Helge Pedersen, Steve Sutton, Kae Anderson, Leah Croke,
David Rolland, Ian Charman, Mike Makepeace, Bob Pemble, Graham Newhouse and Barbara Singer;
other public servants who contributed greatly included Barry Chambers, Jennifer Prince, Peter Caldwell, Captain John
Butler, Barry Berwick, Garry Scanlan, and Captain Bruce Wilson of the Darwin Port Corporation; John Baskerville,
Dianne Burbidge, John Carroll, Linny Thom, Shaun O’Sullivan and Enzo Matarazzo;
I also extend my deepest appreciation to the Board of the AustralAsia Railway Corporation for their untiring efforts,
in particular the Chairman, Rick Allert and John Crosby, Otto Alder and Jim Hallion;
thanks also to specialist advisors from Clayton Utz, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deutsche Bank.; and
my special thanks to Paul Tyrrell, Chief Executive of my department and also of the AustralAsia Railway Corporation,
for his leadership, expertise, persistence and commitment from the early concept and planning phase through to
completion of construction. If you had to single out one person who contributed to the rail – it is always difficult,
of course - but you would be hard pressed to go past Paul Tyrrell. This Territory owes him an enormous vote of thanks.
I know I have named a lot of people, but while I have not been able to name everyone, I do thank you all for your contributions, great and small, to this major Australian infrastructure project.
Madam Speaker, the arrival of the first freight train on 17 January signalled the commencement of fully fledged operations of the new AustralAsia Railway and a new domestic supply route for the Territory. Importantly, it also signalled the availability of a new and alternative international trading route for the nation that we will seek to grow from essentially a zero base to a target of 50 000 international containers or equivalent tonnage over the next three years. We know this is an ambitious challenge, but are fully committed to achieving it.
The Territory, and Darwin in particular, has the opportunity to develop as a supply, service and distribution centre of regional significance, creating new employment and business opportunities. South Australia also stands to benefit through the availability of an alternative trading route to its export markets in north and south-east Asia.
Regarding the domestic freight task, FreightLink, the private sector operator of the new rail service, has publicly announced that it expects to carry 350 000 tonnes of freight in its first year of operation, ramping up to 800 000 tonnes of freight per annum over the next few years. The recent announcement that FreightLink has signed contracts with two of the major domestic freight forwarders to shift a substantial proportion of their freight volumes on the new rail service is firm evidence that these targets can be achieved.
The Scott Group of Companies, through their wholly owned subsidiary, Northern Territory Freight Services, has committed to move a minimum of 120 000 tonnes of freight per annum between Adelaide and Darwin. Likewise, FCL, one of Australia’s largest rail-based freight fowarders, has fully committed to the new service. These contracts represent a huge vote of confidence by the private sector in the future success of the line’s freight service. I also understand that FreightLink is currently negotiating with the major fuel companies who account for approximately 30% of the domestic freight task, about the option of using rail.
My government is actively pursuing a program of strategic and coordinated initiatives to gain the medium-term spin-off benefits from the new rail and port projects that we all desire, including:
increased international trade by the port of Darwin;
increased and more frequent international shipping connections between the Territory and Asia;
development of value-adding industries in the Territory that can piggy-back on the growth of this new trade;
and importantly, the realisation of new development, employment and investment opportunities for our regional centres.
Let me now update members on our progress and plans to achieve each of these goals. The growth of new import and export trade through the port of Darwin and via the new AustralAsia Trade Route is a fundamental medium-term objective of this government. As mentioned previously, our challenging target as laid down in the Economic Development Strategy is to secure 50 000 containers or equivalent tonnage of new international freight after the first three years of rail operations. Having said that, we must accept that this will be an evolving development with the early years being a particular challenge.
As a precursor to getting any international customers to make a fundamental decision to move their freight along the new AustralAsia Trade Route, FreightLink will have to demonstrate that they can successfully operate a reliable and efficient domestic rail service. The Territory government continues to work with, and in advance of, FreightLink and other strategic partners to capture this new international freight.
My government, in conjunction with FreightLink and the South Australian government, is actively working to secure base load customers over the next few years who individually can deliver some 200 000 to 300 000 tonnes of new freight to the railway. These customers include base metal exporters located in South Australia, the automotive industry, and new mineral developments in the Territory.
During my investment mission to Melbourne in November last year, I met with a senior executive of one of these base load customers, Stuart Hall, General Manager of Business Development, Western Mining Corporation, who confirmed that the new trade route was definitely an option his company would consider as a future means of getting their product to export markets throughout Asia.
Furthermore, last December I met with the CEO of one of Australia’s largest retailers which imports over 10 000 containers of clothing and electronic goods into Australia each year. The company sees potential in moving some of this trade via the new AustralAsia trade route, and has agreed to work directly with the Office of Territory Development to assess the feasibility of doing so. A complementary strategy is aimed at incremental growth and targets medium and small volume importers and exporters who can see the potential of the new trade route. For example, during my Asian investment mission last year, we identified and made contact with a number of companies who individually export 1000 or 2000 containers of freight to Melbourne per annum. Some of these companies, such as Linfox in Malaysia, and Sembcorp Logistics in Singapore, came to Darwin this month as part of Global Freight Connect 2004 to progress discussions with FreightLink and the Territory government about the viability of sending their freight via the new trade route.
Success in capturing high volume base load cargos, along with this incremental growth, will deliver the freight volumes needed to sustain new or expanded international shipping connections with Darwin. To varying degrees, shipping companies can also influence how freight is moved and are therefore important stakeholders that we need to engage with. During the government’s Asian investment mission last year, representatives from the Office of Territory Development and the Darwin Port Corporation met with senior executives of a number of global and regional shipping lines at their head offices in Singapore and Hong Kong. It is clear that the strongest immediate interest in the new trade route option lies with some of the regional carriers, reflecting their eagerness to develop new trade flows. The global operators tend to take a more ‘wait and see’ approach and are probably more likely to get involved after trade volumes have been developed.
John Parkes from FreightLink visited Asia in December and followed up with some of the contacts made during my Asian investment mission. In January this year, the Territory’s Trade Minister, Paul Henderson, with support from the Office of Territory Development and FreightLink, led a delegation to Indonesia to promote the new AustralAsia trade route. As part of this visit, the delegation participated in a half day seminar hosted by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta that focussed on the opportunities associated with the new AustralAsia trade route. Over 150 representatives from the Indonesian import/export and international freight and shipping business community attended the seminar. Furthermore, a number of these Indonesian shipping representatives took the opportunity to come to Darwin for the Global Freight Connect Conference and to view our port and rail facilities first-hand.
Graeme Lacey, the CEO of local Territory company, Rooney Shipping, also participated in the delegation and took the opportunity to progress negotiations with a regional shipping line interested in establishing new shipping links into East Arm Wharf. As previously advised to the Assembly, on 10 November last year, Swires Shipping, a long standing and reputable international shipping line that have been operating out of Darwin for the last five years, commenced operation of a new NT express shuttle service between the East Arm Wharf and Singapore. This initiative by one of the world’s most respected shipping lines was driven by the company’s confidence that the new trade route will be successful in the medium term. This augurs well for the new trade route and is another key link between the Territory and the markets to our north.
Construction of the 50 hectare first stage of the Darwin Business Park is well advanced. This government has invested $11m, and that was revised up from $9m, in this strategic land development being built next to the rail marshalling yards at Berrimah. The new business park ideally complements our goal to develop the new AustralAsia trade route. Over the medium term, the Darwin Business Park is expected to serve freight forwarding, consolidation and distribution, cold storage, processing and packaging operations, as well as value-adding operations such as light assembly and manufacturing.
On 14 August, Australian’s leading transport and logistics company, Toll Holdings, commenced construction of a state-of-the-art consolidation and distribution facility in the park. Toll are rapidly progressing with the construction of these new facilities and are investing over $18m - that is up $1m from their original investment of $17m - in the development over four years. Many local Territory companies have already won contracts on the Toll development.
The Territory government’s Land Development Corporation is currently assessing expressions of interest received from organisations wishing to develop the remainder of the rail frontage blocks at the business park, and commercial negotiations are under way. Complementing the business park development, the government is conducting an international marketing campaign to attract new value-adding industries to the park over the medium term.
Last month, on 27 January, I had the pleasure in joining our local retail clothing company, Geminex, when they announced they are set to expand their operations after signing an agreement with Melbourne specialist scan packing company, Supply-LINQ. Under the agreement, called Supply-LINQ Northern Territory, Geminex will carry out value-adding packaging work on clothing shipped in from Asia and then transported south by rail. Supply-LINQ provides ‘floor ready’ merchandising services to major retailers such as Coles Myer, Grace Bros, Target, K-Mart, Big W, David Jones and Just Jeans. This agreement is a great example of how opportunities will arise for Territory companies on the back of the AustralAsia Railway and the new trade route. I was also pleased to note that Geminex has openly thanked this government for the work of the Office of Territory Development in cultivating Supply-LINQ’s interest in the new trade route, and introducing the two companies to each other last year.
The new trade route also offers opportunities for the Territory’s regional centres. Katherine and Tennant Creek will become natural railheads for freight distributed along the Victoria and Barkly Highways. The advent of the railway will also enhance their ability to become supply centres for the Territory’s agricultural and mining industries. For example, already bananas from Cooktown in Queensland are being sent to Tennant Creek by road, and being transported onto the railway for delivery to the Perth markets. Furthermore, horticultural exporters in the Ord River district in the west are now seriously looking at exporting their product via the new shipping services out of Darwin. Currently, they send this freight to the port at Fremantle.
The availability of the new trade route has also assisted new mineral developments in the Territory. Development of the Bootu Creek manganese mine near Tennant Creek, and the substantial export freight of 500 000 tonnes per annum, can be delivered to the new trade route. It is a high priority for this government and the local Tennant Creek community. My Office of Territory Development and the Darwin Port Corporation are working with the Bootu Creek developers to establish appropriate bulk handling facilities at East Arm, and we are extremely hopeful that the project will be operating later this year.
Whilst primarily a freight railway, substantial new tourism opportunities will arise for Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. The service will provide a steady stream of new passengers into Darwin year round, assisting the industry overcome seasonality constraints by providing a base level of tourists during the Wet Season. Additionally, the service provides an opportunity to attract new airlines into Darwin. We have already seen some positive results, with Australian Airlines due to start operations from Singapore to Darwin as from May this year. Various holiday packages have been developed by Trainways, Great Southern Railways’ holiday division, incorporating a variety of product offerings such as flights, accommodation, visits to attractions, national parks and tours, ensuring that the benefits of the rail are spread across a variety of tourism sectors and regions.
Territory Discoveries will distribute 15 000 copies of its new 2004-05 rail brochure to retail travel agents across Australia during February. The new Ghan service also provides the impetus for operators to upgrade facilities, which can provide benefit to the wider community. For example, we have seen Werner Sarny of Travel North investing in 10 new 61-seat Eurorider buses in the Katherine region, which will provide benefits both for passengers on the Ghan and to the community, as the buses will also be used on school routes.
Great Southern Rail reports that ticket sales for the Ghan to Darwin have now topped $20m, surpassing their highest expectation. The length of the passenger trains is being extended to fit in eager passengers, with trains well over 1 km in length expected. It is estimated that the Ghan will carry an extra 30 000 tourists per year, which translates into a direct and ongoing injection of $28m per annum into the Territory in direct visitor expenditure. This will support around 200 additional tourism jobs.
Madam Speaker, as you see, this government has already taken significant steps towards capturing new investment and trade opportunities for Territorians from the new AustralAsia Trade Route. We will continue to strengthen our market intelligence and business case development capacity to attract more shipping service and value-adding industries. In terms of shipping, our government has a clear objective of securing new shipping links between Darwin and North Asia over the new two years. We will do this in partnership with the South Australian government, FreightLink and other strategic partners.
Officials from the Northern Territory and South Australian governments, in conjunction with FreightLink, have developed an action plan for joint collaboration during 2004. The action plan focusses on joint marketing missions to Asia and major domestic markets, collaborative market research and analysis, business case development for base load customers and industries, and the attraction of new shipping services to Darwin.
The Premier of South Australia and I are committed to progressing our key priorities for 2004 including a joint marketing mission to China with FreightLink to pursue a Darwin/North Asia shipping link. Planning for such a mission in April this year is well under way. South Australia also participated in Global Freight Connect 2004, the international freight conference held earlier this month. Some of the biggest names in the Australian and regional trade freight and transport sector, including representatives from throughout Asia, flew into Darwin to address this high powered industry conference hosted by the Northern Territory government. I congratulate Brian O’Gallagher from the Office of Territory Development for his role in the success of this conference. According to the Sunday Territorian, to quote them:
- Indications so far are this might well be the most important business conference staged in the Northern Territory.
We also took this opportunity to show the 180 international, national and local delegates our new port and rail facilities first-hand. Many have now gone back with a much more optimistic view of the new trade route.
The government is working with and in advance of FreightLink and other strategic partners to develop the new AustralAsia Trade Route over the next three years. We are working closely with the local Territory industry and, where appropriate, with the South Australian government to achieve this goal. Our immediate priorities include the further development of the Darwin Business Park; the development of a new international shipping connection between East Arm Wharf and Asia; the capture of base load international customers to generate new international traffic; the development of regional freight centres; and the facilitation of new mineral developments along the central corridor. The development of a North Asia shipping service is of particular priority for the development of a vibrant new trade route.
Madam Speaker, it is an exciting and uplifting vision of the future which I am sure all agree will be supported by all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the statement. With every stage of the railway, for those of us who had the opportunity to witness significant weldings of sections of rail out in the middle of the bush, there was a chance to meet again and again at different places, in Alice Springs, in Adelaide, and here in Darwin. We kept running into the same people and telling the same stories. The railway is a bit of infrastructure that seems to attract a lot of interest and a collection of people who seem to be strangely fascinated by the railway. We were all captured by the magic of rail. I guess, when trying to understand why it is that people become so focussed on rail we realise that railways are not built very often and there is a certain mystique about them. It was indeed a most historic event that did inspire the imaginations and emotions of many, many people.
For me, someone who has come along lately to this and had the privilege of attending some of the official functions, I was just sincerely humbled to be a part of this. As someone who looks up at the giants around me who have made long term concerted efforts to make this come to pass it is those people that I literally take my hat off to: the people who believed that this was a reality when all other strong voices around at the time would be speaking to the contrary. There are some now who are strangely quiet and oddly there are also some now who are strangely euphoric about the rail when, at one time, their comments were less than that; muted, to say the least. Those who believed in darkest times, those who enthusiastically saw something that was not and made it happen, they are the real heroes here.
Their names are listed, and I start with Paul Everingham, a man I have met only on a couple of occasions. He looms large on the Territory landscape as a man who ignited that passion and vision and drove this idea forward. He and those who followed and carried the baton are the ones who should inspire all of us that no matter how small we are we can achieve great things. My colleague in this Chamber, the member for Brennan, Denis Burke, made a contribution. I recall a time in a lead-up to an election and there was a concerted chorus of derision saying that this would not occur and it was going to come off the rails, so to speak. It did come to pass. The momentum of the vision that has been propelled along through Paul Everingham, Barry Coulter, Shane Stone and others, and the public servants who worked behind the scenes – and I acknowledge and stand beside every name that was mentioned – over an extended period of time, every credit to you.
The railway is an enterprise that seems to attract, as I said, significant gatherings for what normally would be a minor event like the welding of the rail between Katherine and Tennant Creek. That is where I met Rob Kerin for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition from South Australia. We went on to meet on about three or four different occasions, and he said: ‘I think I’ve just about had enough of these special events and some day it will all come to a close and we will be able to look back on this and see it as one great project’. At all those great celebrations, the ceremonial welds and the arrivals and departures, the cheering and so on, one thing comes to mind as I realise that there was no official opening of the railway terminals. The fact that there was no great hoo-ha about the cutting of ribbons or the back slapping and three cheers with regard to Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin probably is a story in itself. That part of it left a good number of our regional communities, and here in the Top End, with less than an enthusiastic position with regards to the impression that would be created by the rail terminals, the sidings, as some people call them, or the ‘long drop’ in Tennant Creek. That aside, it has been a most auspicious occasion. For anyone who was involved in it, it was a time that did engender some emotion.
I acknowledge the sense of history in this. As we drive to Katherine there is a rail crossing a river - and I commend Duncan Beggs and the great work that he has done in communicating aspects of the rail to the Northern Territory community over an extended period of time. It draws attention to the rail crossing and a stone bridge that was built, to my knowledge, in 1925 by hand by migrant labourers. The quality of that workmanship is such a standard that the rail itself, the modern rail over a kilometre long, can pass over that bridge with only minor modifications. Once again, it is a credit to the ongoing workmanship and the quality that we have here in the Northern Territory and the contribution that has been made – I think in this case it was Greek labourers who built that bridge - high quality workmanship. It is tremendous to see something so old being up to a quality today that it is able to carry that rail.
Another aspect of the rail that I do not have the detail to go into, but I will be doing some work to make sure that this part of the rail is not forgotten, are the spin-offs, the technological contributions made by Territory businesses. There were innovative responses from Territory business in winning successful tenders for the rail, which are a great testament to the capacity of Territory businesses to respond to challenge. Duncan Beggs was able to give a tremendous outline of the different innovations that were created as a result of the rail, one in particular was an articulated trailer which has captured the imagination of all who saw it.
Of course we get engineers attracted to rail projects, and they see some of the innovative solutions, which, once again, are testament to the quality that we have here in the Northern Territory of local businesses able to deal with difficult situations and simply come up with a solution. To my understanding, that solution also has a significant value in being used in other places in the world. I do not have the details on those, there was a growing list of Territory innovations. I will be in contact with Duncan Beggs to see whether we can make sure that all of those local innovations, in whatever form, are documented. For anyone who has an interest in rail, and there are many of them, from Tim Fischer down, they are an important part of the history. They also tell the human story of the capacity to solve difficult problems, and Territorians being able to meet challenge.
Using the rail project as an analogy of what good economic stimulus does provide, it provides real employment. To have meaningful, sustained, genuine employment offered to a number of Territorians, and principally indigenous Territorians, was a very satisfying component of this rail. Out of the 1450 contractors employed, 130 of them were indigenous, and to have a noticeable difference made to the aspirations and the skills level of Territorians, and in this case indigenous Territorians, you need to have a stimulated economy. You need to have an economy that has the capacity to go forward. It is for those reasons that we continue to argue that the answers are found in the local economy. You must have a real economy. In some ways the railway is a way of illustrating just how powerful those forces are, because if you were up and down that rail, and you saw those people who were actively involved in a real project in real work, they carried themselves as real men with their heads up high and they had pride in their achievement. That was something that I certainly enjoyed, particularly at that time between Katherine and Tennant Creek. Those workers felt so proud of their contribution. Their pride is a quality pride, and it is a pride that carries them on into the future and gives them stories to tell their children about the project that they were involved in. It gives them skills that they can then use in other places. That is what really makes the difference.
That level of pride contrasted with - and we can be all be susceptible to it as politicians - but for politicians getting on the train and drawing unnecessary attention to themselves and trying to take as much glory as possible unto themselves so that they appear to be something of note, the very time that you touch that, you diminish your sense of standing and prestige and it cheapens the whole exercise. To that end I must comment on what was referred to by a number as the Mike and Clare show – this is Mike Rann and the Chief Minister – it did appear for the politicians who were involved in finding a former Labor Chief Minister coming out, and getting himself into a royal carriage …
Dr Lim: Prime Minister, not Chief Minister.
Mr MILLS: Prime Minister, sorry! Yes. It is those aspects of it that rankle slightly with ordinary Territorians, and particularly when I match the pride of indigenous Territorians and those contractors I met between Katherine and Tennant Creek - that is the real glory and the real strength of it.
However, to go up and pretend that you had extraordinary contributions to make to this, and cannot help but draw some of the glory to yourself - it is at that point that you begin to lose. There was some gloss that was lost in this exercise, particularly in the number of speeches that I heard. I could not help but detect the lack of generosity in acknowledging - particularly from our Chief Minister - in an uncomplicated and generous way, those who were properly involved in this railway. I for one noticed it and many others did. Many Territorians were silent in their observance of such utterances, but it did lodge within the Territory psyche that there was an ungenerous acknowledgement, or lack of acknowledgement, of the full contribution of those past. If you try to appropriate the glory for yourself, you at that point lose it.
I believe the actual last phase of the rail, of course, is the public face we now see. Most of the community see the terminals. We have already mentioned Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin.
However, we also mention the need for a community to celebrate. For a community to celebrate is a most important thing, because this has been talked about and discussed around barbecues and on fishing trips for years. There are families who were saying, ‘The train is coming’. There were children who had not seen a train. That exercise should have been a roaring success. It should have had the highest of priority so that the Territory community could have a complete celebration; that it was about their celebration, about their railway. It was a most disagreeable outcome to what should have been a very significant event for the Northern Territory community, particularly the Top End community. The number of Territorians who said that they felt like fools standing there on the side of the railway line waiting for the train to come - children who had never seen a train before, dads who had ‘geed’ their kids up to see the train - to find that it had not arrived.
There are ways that this could have been organised if the focus had have been in the right area. It would not have been too difficult for the community to be tuned into the local radio and to be told that that is where their information would be coming from. Instead, we had this mismanaged affair where there were public announcements that were locked in and there was disarticulation between the public media and the official media, which had many Territorians unsure about what was going on. It turned out to be a rather sad affair for many Territorians and an indictment on the Territory government.
I go back to the point that, in these issues such as significant events like this, we have already talked about how important it is that we celebrate certain parts of the rail because it is most historic and it does evoke emotion. We are seeing something that will never happen again. There will never be another Adelaide to Darwin railway. It is important that a community is duly acknowledged and brought to the fore because it is actually about them and their future.
I also draw attention to the future of Alice Springs. The fact that the rail has arrived and it now connects Alice Springs to Darwin means there are many issues with regards to the transition from rail freight to road freight. Now we have rail to rail going through Alice Springs. There are many issues that have arisen as a result of this transition that have caught many small business operators in Alice Springs on the hop. Yes, they knew the railway was coming. They had expressed their concerns and were seeking some guidance from the relevant departments to assist them in a transitionary stage. The view from Alice Springs is that their voices were not heard and it basically happened all by itself. Now they are left to find their own way, and many of them are in a terrible state with regards to what do now. Take responsibility for the part which you had and that being the commencement of that rail, the conclusion of that rail, and knowing how to manage that transition, particularly for the Alice Springs community because it has had significant effect to bear upon the local economy in Alice Springs.
I would like to know what precisely has been done in the transitionary period, in the last two years, for the Alice Springs community, particularly the trucking industry, to prepare them for the rail. Secondly, for the service stations and the small communities up and down the line which are sustained by the trucking industry, what has been done to assist those small business operators? I understand it is a time of change. I am not standing here saying that that should not happen, but I want to know what government has actually, what it has actually put in place to respond to those small issues which are huge issues for the people concerned and for the community of Alice Springs.
I acknowledge the fine strategies that have been outlined in here in regard to Asian relations and trade. Generally I support them. However, I as well as members opposite have been on the record saying that the focus must be maintained, and it should have been maintained right from the taking up of government. The momentum of this rail is something that propels us into the next phase. The rail was up and running; it had a steam of its own in many respects. It was actually a part of a broader concept and it seems now, only now, now that the rail has been completed, that we have members opposite waxing lyrical about trade routes into the region. It seems to me that that is too late.
Granted you will make the progress. Granted you will now make the connections and you will endeavour to shift shipping routes through the Port of Darwin, but really, there was a momentum that had been built up that needed to be capitalised on and literally you had dropped the ball. I can speak with some authority in that regard. Between Christmas and New Year, I took the Merpati flight on its return to West Timor to visit the port of West Timor. That is our closest Indonesian port. I was surprised to discover that the port had trebled in size in the last three years. At the port I saw areas that had been set aside and concreted ready for the receiving and storing of containers. Three years ago there were no shipping containers in the port of Kupang. It was just local trade which did not use containers. On the day that I was inspecting the port there were 250 containers there and their master plan sees a massive expansion of that port and it already has gone ahead of its blueprint.
I have been given the master plan for the port of Kupang. The port of Kupang connects to the port of Surabaya, the major trading port in Indonesia. The most disturbing part of this was that when I spoke to the Governor, and I spoke to the port authorities, they were surprised that the railway had actually been completed. They knew that the railway was a concept that had been talked about. They said they remember Shane Stone and Denis Burke. They remembered me from my previous visits running school exchanges and on a previous visit as a backbencher and I had studied in Kupang some years ago. They remember that, but they have never heard of our current minister, nor did they know that the railway was completed. Now, basic knowledge such as the existence of rail infrastructure just over the horizon, a one hour 20 minute flight from the port of Darwin, and a port of like capacity to the port of Darwin – surely, to have the basic knowledge in expanding a port in our region, that there is rail infrastructure just over the horizon would assist in your negotiations in Jakarta to allow the regional shipping routes to factor in…
If they had the knowledge they could shift their shipping routes through the port of Darwin. I guess it will occur, but my point is by not having that knowledge and being surprised that it has been completed, puts us probably a couple of years behind. Granted, you went to Jakarta some time after that, and of course now the system is aware of it.
What I am saying is that there were two years in which you had the opportunity to keep the vision alive and keep the momentum going because from a government level, if you are doing business in Asia, you need to operate at that governmental level so that the negotiations are developed by good relationships so that people are aware and they can put the decision making cogs in place so that these things can be effected. You can talk to trade and business officials in the region all you like, but unless you have government to government business, you are going to have very slow progress. It is good to see that you are now, with grand titles such as Asian Engagement Missions and so on, embarking on these grand tours to communicate that which should have been communicated a couple of years ago.
I support it, and I wish you all the best. I know it will ultimately be a success. It is a rail that is there for many years to come and will attract the attention of the world as they start to understand the potential that Darwin has. But of course, this was a vision that was always there, always in place.
Mr Dunham: Not for Clare.
Mr MILLS: Well, there was the white elephant as well from Mr Latham, but that is another story.
I would like to put on record the strange story that is circulating with regards to my berth on the train. I will say it quite clearly and, as I said at the beginning, I feel like someone who has come along lately to this, and there are many who have gone before me. The fact that I did not receive an invitation to travel on that rail is no issue or concern to me whatsoever. For it to be asserted in some strange way, however this occurs, I have no idea what it is about.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Anyway …
Mr Kiely: Is that it?
Mr MILLS: It is, indeed. Fifty thousand containers over three years is a big ask. I would ask the minister when he is making his contribution if he could explain to us how he has arrived at 50 000 containers. It is important to establish a goal, and I would accept that as a high benchmark and hope that it can be achieved. I am interested to know how you arrived at 50 000 because for those who are observers of such trade links, particularly at this early stage, it seems to be a rather ambitious target.
Going to the final point of how the Northern Territory can be adequately showcased through this railway – and this once again demonstrates that this is a powerful vision that captures people’s imagination - it surprises me that right around the country now, we have a new vision of the Northern Territory and greater interest in the rail. I have recently been in Western Australia and heard on three different occasions of people who have made plans, putting money aside, senior citizens – I have had my father’s uncle write to me and say with excitement that he is on the rail. There are people all around the country who want to be on this rail. I would agree that this is an unexpected benefit. It certainly is going to be a very significant benefit for the Northern Territory. To have people coming here, having a focus on the Northern Territory, going away with a picture of the Territory, they will be able to communicate that well upon their return.
However, first impressions are critical. I will certainly be gaining the views of my relatives and friends whom I know, with eager anticipation, are coming this way, and seeking their impressions when they arrive in Darwin. I would have to say that the impression that is gained by that terminal is one that makes many Territorians feel a little uncertain about the way that we are going to be viewed upon their arrival here in Darwin.
Finally, the Sandfly. I would hope that the Northern Territory government has been able to make some progress with regards to negotiation with the South Australian government, and the AustralAsian Rail Corporation, with the relocation of the Sandfly to the Northern Territory. Whilst I was in Adelaide I went to Keswick Station and had a look at the little Sandfly and it is a little beauty. In fact, it belongs here in the Northern Territory. I spoke to Premier Rann. He seemed to be acceptable of the view that it could be relocated. I also spoke to the executive from AustralAsia Rail. He also said we should have a talk about that, and did not seem to be against the idea at all. The issue now is to build a facility here so that it can be showcased properly in the Northern Territory, and I believe that is something that should occur.
Adelaide has plenty of historic items, particularly associated with railways. This is one that is directly linked to the Northern Territory and should be relocated to the Northern Territory, and if it takes the will of the current Northern Territory government to effect that, I call on you to do so. If not, it will be effected, it will be brought in place by an alternative government, because the capacity to do something like that is a problem which has been demonstrated. Problems can be overcome by Territorians with a will. I am sure that can be done. There are many Territorians who would appreciate that gesture. Maybe it is one way that you could demonstrate the capacity to actually achieve something at the tail end of this railway in terms of putting something in place, so that the people of the Northern Territory will be able to celebrate in true form.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the Chief Minister’s statement on the historic arrival of the train in Darwin. I join with the Chief Minister in congratulating all of those involved in the project from its inception, particularly over the last 10 years as a member of parliament here, seeing it develop. It was in that last decade that the push for the train really gained significant momentum.
It is true to say, it was Chief Minister Stone who took the reports off the shelf where they had been gathering dust, having been commissioned earlier in the nineties. He delegated Barry Coulter as the minister responsible for the rail to go do, and that Minister Coulter did in no uncertain terms. Notwithstanding the energy, the vigour and the great passion that Barry Coulter brought to this project, and he was certainly busy, not just in Australia, but internationally as well, scouring and encouraging investment into the project, notwithstanding all the very valuable groundwork that he did, it was still a tough project to get through.
Chief Minister Burke, of course, was the Chief Minister who saw the final approvals through and the passage of the final legislation prior to actual construction commencing. The former Leader of the Opposition, former Chief Minister Denis Burke, would well recall the circumstances under which that last legislation went through prior to the construction. It was a tense time. It was on a knife edge as to whether that project would go through or not. It was stressful. It was a very strained time and a time of high tension, but it got through, despite all those difficulties: the funding difficulties; the companies that were in and then suddenly were out; the efforts of South Australia to secure a greater investment, seeing them go to, I think it was a South Korean company, the lender of the last resort in the marketplace - and then having to back off that and secure other investments. It was not without a great many obstacles and hurdles - in the last 12 to 18 months, and particularly in the last three months - that had to be overcome. Therefore, credit to each of those.
At the public sector level, particularly the head of the Chief Minister’s Department, Paul Tyrrell. I remember on the same evening of that legislation, a very tired and drained Paul Tyrrell at a hurried briefing in that afternoon on the extent of the legislation that we were passing on urgency that same day and just what it meant. The previous Chief Minister would share the same view, that he also looked very tense and very drained at that stage, because there had been an exhausting series of meeting to make sure it stayed on track. Larry Bannister is one who certainly did a lot of work under Minister Coulter’s direction, pulling those reports off shelves, getting them together and making the strongest case possible for the rail. Alastair Shields should be mentioned. I was not close enough to know all of the players. However, certainly from my knowledge from opposition in those days, they are just a handful of the individuals who helped get the rail through. To me, in my own view, they are individuals whose contribution is significant enough to warrant particular mention.
In terms of the project overall, once it was under way it really did run smoothly. It was completed ahead of time, not an easy feat for a $1.3bn project through some of the toughest terrain in the world. You really have to hand it to those workers from day one right through to the project coming across the Barkly, and the temperatures we have all experienced through the Centre, and all the way to the tropical north. It was a magnificent safety record for that project for all of the man hours completed. The Leader of the Opposition made mention of the valuable contribution that Territory business made to the project as well. You have to hand it to the work force; the workers who stuck at it day by day, and Territory businesses that were able to come up with inventive ideas to make the job that much more efficient.
In historic terms, 2004 will be marked as a major step forward for the Territory – the year that the rail finally arrived. The arrival of the goods train in January, and later the first passenger train, marks the end of that long battle that I have briefly touched on. I hope the former Chief Minister does contribute to this debate. Out of all of us in this Chamber, he would be the one left now, obviously, who was closest to the action in terms of how difficult it was. It would be interesting to hear from him - probably we are talking of 18 months to two years ago – of those difficulties.
I was in Nhulunbuy when the first train left Adelaide and arrived in Darwin. I listened with great interest to Julia Christensen on ABC radio. She has the ability to make you feel you were there. I was in Nhulunbuy listening to the whole journey for three days all the way through, from Adelaide Railway Station where she interviewed people about the significance of it and what it meant to them at an individual level. She was then able to scour out along the suburbs along the route of the rail where people were gathered on each station the train passed through to witness the first journey and again interview people as to what it meant to them – why they were there and interested in seeing this train go through. They see trains go through those stations 20 times a day. However, the significance of the idea of rail uniting the top and the south - of course, the Stuart Highway does it, but in a way that the road does not quite capture the romance of rail, I suppose, and the completion of a long-held vision. That was fascinating to me and I congratulate Julie Christensen and ABC radio. They do it so well on these significant and memorable occasions, as I said, with the ability to place you there on the spot.
I was in Darwin at the Darwin Railway Station to meet the first passenger train. It was almost surreal. You could see it in the distance; it seemed to take an awful long time to finally get into the station. It is very difficult not to say it was an emotional moment. It was. To see a train of that length - and I had seen it on television - but the splendour of it and the fact that it was there, really there, you could reach out and touch it. I thought it was a pretty special moment.
That aside, most importantly it does mark a new phase in the economic development of the Territory. That is what this is all about and, of course, as minister responsible for employment, education and training, I will be watching very closely the impact in the longer term and the shorter term, the impact on job creation and development.
I pick up some the points being made by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the impact in Alice Springs. We recognised late last year when Cabinet approved a $3m injection into roads in Central Australia, notwithstanding the entire road network needs millions of dollars, it has been run down. But we thought here was the way of keeping many of the diesel fitters, the mechanics, and the people involved in the trucking industry. If you are going to get serious money in on roads, you need the earthmoving equipment, you need the trucks and you need maintenance and repairs along with that. We will be looking to certainly do more in the forthcoming budget. However, there was an immediate response in terms of getting money into Central Australia at the same time doing a very important role on our jobs.
Already the Desert Knowledge precinct is just at the point of commencement now. It started last week. In the next three years there will be 250 jobs, and $27.8m will be spent there supporting those 250 jobs. It is a bit rich for the Leader of the Opposition to ask what we are doing about Alice Springs when you have expenditure of that nature being rolled out over the next three years.
Mr Deputy Speaker, throughout the course of the building of the rail, it provided many hundreds of jobs. Many of those jobs went to specialist interstate workers who did a great job on the rail but having completed that job, as they do, they follow the major projects and many of them would have gone their way. It provided many jobs for locals, up and down the track both on-site and through the economic impact in regional centres. It was an important source of training opportunities, and inside those training opportunities a significant boost to indigenous training and employment. Now that the line is in place and the work complete, the challenge really for government and Territory industry and business is to make sure we capture those workers who gained those skills on that rail so that they are not back unemployed as they may have been before. Get them on future projects as they come through and to continue to enhance and reskill them for work into the future. The other challenge for everyone, particularly the operators, is to make that line work profitably for all.
Certainly, the tourism industry can expect a shot in the arm. We all thought ‘Oh!’ when the bookings went past $5m, $8m and when that first train arrived I think they went from like $15m to over $20m in the space of about three days. That was the effect, the pure and simple effect of people seeing the footage and saying, ‘I want to be a part of that. I want to be on that train’. Bookings were in the order of $4m or $5m in the space of three or four days, and well in excess of $20m now. That represents, and will continue to present opportunities to Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine to market themselves as tour destinations along the route. Substantial opportunities that simply were not there before and tour companies are already incorporating holiday packages and all sorts of product that the Territory has to offer. There is no doubt that that national publicity and international publicity that was generated around the first trips of the goods train and The Ghan you simply could not buy.
I take offence at some of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, who was not there and acknowledged that he was not on the train, but took a shot at Premier Rann and the Northern Territory Chief Minister for claiming all the glory and all the credit. Well, let me tell him, and his own colleague, the member for Brennan, can bear this out, they worked tirelessly – absolutely tirelessly – for the three days they were on that train selling the Northern Territory, and South Australia in the case of Premier Rann, to Japanese, to US, to European television, to get that footage up, to tell those people what this rail meant to Territorians and to Australians overall.
That publicity was generating the three and four and five millions dollars extra in ticket sales over the space of three or four days. That is what they were doing. They were not swanning around soaking up the glory. They were working hard every day to get that message out about the rail. The ABC footage of the arrival in Tennant Creek was terrific and the member for Barkly can indeed be proud of the people of Tennant Creek - not just Tennant Creek; they came from everywhere. Bob Collins said Katherine Railway Station was memorable. As only Collins can, he said, ‘The whole bloody town was there’ and that is certainly what it looked like on television; a truly joyous occasion. It is no less significant in Katherine from the footage I saw on television.
So the Territory was covered. There is just one other point I want to make, and that is to pay tribute to Mark Bowling and Stateline. The ability to almost place you on the spot; and some of the scenery from the train, the early mornings and the evenings, are an absolute delight. They are pictures in themselves. But Mark Bowling in that laconic way, I suppose, very cool and casual, but at the same time always 110% professional, just told the wonderful story of what this train journey meant to everyone on it. I could not think of a better person to have put that story together. It was a fabulous program and a great marketing tool in itself. The Territory was covered from Alice right through to Darwin by international and national media: television, print, press, the works. The opportunities into the future for small business to get on the back of this will be significant, particularly in tourism.
The Chief Minister said it is likely The Ghan would directly support the injection of 16 000 extra tourists into the Territory each year, and that is a $27m growth into the Northern Territory economy and sustain an extra 200 jobs on an annual basis. Not bad. Not bad figures at all. It is a stable, all year round service so tourists will be coming into the Territory at any time, not necessarily in the Dry Season. We can use it to build the Wet Season tourism industry, giving a much more solid base, all year round, to tourism.
With the government incentives that we have announced in the Jobs Plan, we would be looking to see an increase in young Territorians being employed in the wider tourism and hospitality training services as they get onto a much stronger footing. The growth in regional opportunities is also an exciting aspect. Not only is there likely to be a greater tourism impact in places along the track, but the impact of the development of Tennant Creek and Katherine as potential rail heads also bodes well for the growth of jobs in these two places.
I saw Paul Ruger from Tennant Creek on that same show, a very excited Paul Ruger, talking about what the rail meant to Tennant Creek and what was occurring already, albeit the first couple of trains that had come through. The diversity in those places of economic activity will be much welcomed and will bring new job and training opportunities.
We also expect regional industries such as mining to get a boost from the railway and the opportunity to carry product. Overall, the growth of new import and export trade through the port of Darwin and via the new AustralAsia Trade Route is going to be a fundamental growth factor for us and for the Northern Territory. Fifty thousand containers a year is the goal. When you get to that stage there will be many spin-offs right throughout the economy. Jobs and employment opportunities are being generated daily by the ongoing development of the Darwin Business Park. The placement of companies in close proximity to the railway, the freight forwarders and others, will create further job opportunities that would not have existed without the railway.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I said at the start, the real achievement of the rail is not that it was complete. That will be measured going into the future. It will be how well we, as a community, use the opportunities generated by the railway’s arrival that will be a measure of how successful it has been. Early signs are that the business community and everyone associated with the railway is getting it right, and it provides yet another significant boost to further exciting growth in the Northern Territory.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, having been a resident of Alice Springs and having the train coming to Alice Springs for well nigh 100 years, I did not expect seeing the train come through to be particularly exciting. However, let me say this: the town of Alice Springs responded very positively to the fact that the railway line was completed between Alice Springs and Darwin at long last, and that, indeed, we are going to see trains going through.
The day the freight train arrived in Alice Springs was quite eventful. I estimated that we had close to 2000 people at the railway station. It was chock-a-block, it was standing room only, and the terminal was taken over by masses of people. I thought the arrangements were pretty bad, actually, that people could not get into the railway station until right on one o’clock. People had turned up well before that because it was in the newspapers and announced on radio that it was going to arrive at 12:15, and people had lined up outside the railway station waiting to get in well before that.
Anyway, standing in Alice Springs at midday in the sun was not the best thing people would like to do. Once the gates were opened, there was a huge rush of people into the railway station, and the organisers and the people who were there to help look after the crowds were overwhelmed. All of the mementos that were supposed to be given to each person who attended were, unfortunately, grabbed en masse by many people. Those who had hoped to receive those historic mementos did miss out.
I am glad to see in the Chief Minister’s statement that she recognised Paul Everingham, who was one of the first visionaries to want to see the railway completed for the Northern Territory; unlike Gough Whitlam, who waxed lyrical and decided to rewrite history and tell everybody that, had it not been for him, the railway line would not have been developed in the first instance. What a load of codswallop that was, for him to sit in the royal carriage, so we are told, waxing lyrical about the history as he saw it. Was it not the Hawke pre-election promise that only a Labor government would deliver the railway for the Northern Territory, and once he got into government, what did he do? He commissioned the Hill Report to sink the railway line, and that is what he did.
That is the calibre of the Labor prime ministers that you have. Instead of fulfilling the dream that Territorians had, that the railway line would be completed between Alice and Darwin, as promised at Federation, it took a very dedicated, concerted effort from the CLP government, from Paul Everingham. I would like to say that Chief Ministers Ian Tuxworth and Steve Hatton had very little to do with the railway line, then after that, Chief Minister Marshall Perron, Chief Minister Shane Stone, and the current member for Brennan who was then Chief Minister. Without his very firm effort, the railway line construction would have fallen over. As the Chief Minister commented, you would recall the time when Hancock decided to pull out and the Premier of South Australia nearly sank the project with his unilateral action. Thank goodness for the foresight of our then Chief Minister, the member for Brennan, that things came together one more time.
A vision for the railway line for the Northern Territory is definitely something that has been voiced for many decades and, at long last, we see that now in reality. However, it was not just the railway line that was the instrument of the development. The new Darwin Port was the key to the whole thing. Without the port, the railway line would be a railway line to nowhere. It was the Darwin Port that was the catalyst that brought the whole thing to fruition. This is where this government has missed the plot completely. Instead of promoting the Darwin Port and the railway for the last 2 years, they sat on their hands and waited and waited, ‘Oh, you cannot do anything until it is done’. What a lot of rubbish! Had they gone out there and promoted not only the north of us but the southern manufacturers, we would at least have a certain quantity of containers moving through the Port of Darwin by now. Instead, we are going to now wait for a few more years before we can see anything truly coming through.
When the freight train came through I was in Alice Springs. I was one of many in the crowd standing up against some brick walls watching the events. If it was not a botch-up, I do not know what you would call it when people could not get to sit anywhere. At least we were close enough to the train and were able to see, to smell it; some of us were even privileged enough to touch it. It took forever for the train to move through because of its length. When it was finally parked at the railway station, you could hardly see the engine because it was so far up north of the railway station itself. A handful of us stayed behind after all the speeches were done and the train finally chugged out of the railway station.
We then all jumped into our cars and drove up the north Stuart Highway, up to the first overpass which is about 25 km north of town, to watch the freight train come through. It is such a difference listening to the train. I have been on The Ghan between Adelaide and Alice Springs - the clickety-clack of the railway wheels is quite pronounced. North of Alice Springs, because of the thermit welding of the railway line, there is no clickety-clack and it is quite a silent roll of the wheels on the railway line. It is a distinctive sound from south of Alice Springs to north of Alice Springs. It would be worth your while to experience that if you sat through from Adelaide to Darwin, to sense the difference. People were fortunate to be able to line up along the railway line south of Heavitree Gap, all the way up through to the first overpass, 25 km north of Alice Springs.
However, what I heard about Darwin was a disappointment for me. Territorians north of Alice Springs have been waiting for this train for a long time, and to not even be aware of when the train was going to come through - sitting in the sun in Darwin, waiting for the train to come through, when in fact the train had already gone passed - was a great disappointment for many people, and for children, in particular, who had never seen a train at all in their lives, to not get to see the arrival of the first train into Darwin. For the Chief Minister then to say: ‘Oh well, you can see it again next week’, was a pathetic throwaway line. I believe the Chief Minister realises now that she has really had the worst public relations disaster on her hands ever because of this train.
Under the CLP, do you know what we would have done? We would have put the arrival of the trains in Darwin into the hands of Major Events. Under Paul Cattermole things have been organised very well and we would not have had the debacle that the Chief Minister had to face with the arrival of both the freight train and The Ghan. The Chief Minister not only had to apologise to Territorians but she could not even do it herself. She pushed Paul Tyrrell in front of the media and said it is his fault. That is not the way a leader should lead.
Talking about Alice Springs in regards to the freight train, for months before the first freight train arrived into the Northern Territory, I had been asking about freight prices. I was particularly concerned about what FreightLink would charge for freight into Alice Springs and Darwin. For a long time I was not able to get any indicative prices from anybody, until finally one of the trucking firms was able to give me a briefing and a copy of the freight prices that FreightLink was going to charge. Those figures were fairly rubbery. It was something like June of last year when I first saw those figures. I have since received other, more up-to-date freight charges.
What I have noticed, is that for a standard sized container, it does not matter whether it is a 20 foot or 40 foot container, the price for the container to come from Adelaide to Darwin on the train is almost a third more expensive than for that same container with the same contents, to go from Alice Springs to Darwin. For the life of me I cannot understand why that should be so. Why should Alice Springs, which is right smack in the middle of Adelaide to Darwin, have to pay more for that container than Darwin has to pay for the same container between Alice Springs and Darwin? Something is wrong with the mathematics. I suggest to you that FreightLink is using Alice Springs to subsidise Darwin. That is not on. I was the chairman of the food price review between 1999 and 2000, and we found - and the Deputy Chief Minister was on that committee and he knows full well what I am talking about – that the Alice Springs cost of living was consistently between 2% to 5% lower than Darwin, and it should be so. Alice Springs is halfway to the manufacturing sources than Darwin and surely Alice Springs costs of living should be lower. What FreightLink has done is going to increase the cost of living.
When I put the question to the Chief Minister at last year’s estimates, she said, ‘I do not know anything about it, I have nothing to do with it’. She has everything to do with it. The Northern Territory contributed $175m to this railway line. It is taxpayers’ money, and for that, the government has to have some contribution to make towards what FreightLink would charge Alice Springs people and Territorians in general. Somewhere, somehow, things have gone off the rails and this government has walked away and said it is not our business. What a lot of rubbish.
Alice Springs has now lost its railhead, and sure, they have known about it for a long time and they have been putting processes in place to deal with it. But then the Deputy Chief Minister gets up and says, ‘We have put $3m of works into the roads to help the trucking industry’. The beef industry, the dirt roads up there in the bush need $70m to $80m worth of work right at this moment to get them up to acceptable grade. Three million dollars is a drop in the ocean. It does nothing for anybody. If this government was serious about making sure that our trucking industry in Alice Springs does not suffer, and I will come back to that in a minute, they are suffering in a sense that immediately that the train went through, there were some 36 jobs just went into thin air. The trucking industry has put off 36 people. The multiplier effect of that meant about 100 people were going to be severely affected by the loss of jobs. That is significant in a town of less than 30 000 people. No wonder we are losing a family and a bit every week from Alice Springs.
The government, knowing that the trucking industry was going to be affected, should have started promoting alternate products that the trucking could be used for. We know that the freight train does not have any refrigerated carriages, therefore the trucking industry will have a niche in bringing refrigerated product from Adelaide to Darwin. What they should be doing is ensuring that companies in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales that are sending refrigerated goods to Alice Springs will be using the people in the trucking industry who will be affected by this train. That way, it offsets the potential losses that the trucking industry will face. But what has the government done about it? Nothing. They just sat on their hands, ‘It is not our fault. It is up to FreightLink. It is privatised. It is a private business. It is nothing to do with us’. Well, $175m of Territory budget says that it has a lot to do with us and you must go ahead and do something about it.
The Deputy Chief Minister attacked the Leader of the Opposition about the Premier of South Australia’s and the Chief Minister’s efforts on the train. What the leader said is justified. I take my hat off to the Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, who acknowledged all the previous premiers and others who had contributed to the railway. In every speech I heard him make, he acknowledged John Olsen and others, but this Chief Minister, not once. Her best acknowledgement of the CLP was ‘previous governments’.
Mr Henderson: Wrong.
Dr LIM: Those were her words: previous governments. That is what she has done and that is churlish, nothing else. She had everything handed to her on a platter. All she needed to do was acknowledge that she had this handed on a platter, but could she do it? No, she could not, ‘This is all Clare Martin’s work that the railway line was delivered to the Northern Territory’. And guess what? After all this has been handed to her on a platter, she could not even get the last 100 m of the railway line fixed up properly, could not get the last 100 m of celebration, the last day of the railway line coming to Darwin, could not even get the celebrations organised properly. That is just amazing.
I come to the Chief Minister’s comment about trying for the next three years to get 50 000 containers, or its equivalent in tonnage, through the Port of Darwin. I do not know what she has been doing. Has she been talking to business about it? Perkins would love to be invited to offload all their containers through the Port of Darwin. Within a few months you will have 50 000 containers going through the Port of Darwin just like that. What are they doing about it? Nothing. Have they started talking to Perkins to try to attract them across? Surely that is one of our biggest shipping lines in the Northern Territory. This government has not done anything about it. It sits back and says, ‘Oh, well, private enterprise will have to do it’. This government does not understand enterprise, does not understand how it can go about doing business to improve the through-put from our port.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about how poor the effort has been of the current Minister for Asian Relations and Trade in promoting Darwin and the port facility. It is now 2 years too late, but get on with the work. Get on with the work so that at least for the next couple years, things will accelerate.
In the last couple of minutes I have, I would like to say that of the $9m that was allocated for improvement of railway stations up and down the track, Alice Springs has received a scant amount. The railway station has a small building with very little shade from the sun. It has to be fixed, and we have to have more …
Dr Toyne: We already had a station!
Mr Dunham: It’s a rip snorter. Are you happy with the station, are you? There you are! The Minister for Central Australia reckons they have a good station. What are they whingeing about?
Dr LIM: I will take on that interjection because he says we have a good station. There is no shade. The platform is well below the stair level of the train and people who are travelling …
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Dr LIM: You want tourists come to the Territory and you cannot look after them properly. It is serendipity that has The Ghan bringing tourists into the Northern Territory; it was really something that was not factored into the viability of the railway line. The viability of the railway line was factored for the freight and we knew that tourism would be icing on the cake. The fact that there have been fantastic numbers of tourists coming through on the train means that we are going to get a much better result than we had anticipated. That is well and good, but if you do not look after the tourists, they will not be coming back. If you read the newspapers in the last couple of weeks, people are already complaining. Where are the taxis? They cannot get taxis to come from the railway station into town. Get your act together, improve the business, support the railway line, the train, the port and industry, and then maybe we will see the benefits that the CLP had the foresight to see in bringing the railway line into Darwin.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am rising primarily to celebrate a very significant moment in the Northern Territory. Unlike the previous speaker, I am not at all tempted to turn it into a party political point scoring or criticism. The reality of the arrival of our railway was that members of both major political persuasions have made enormous contributions. This has been a 100 year relay race to get this railway into the Northern Territory, and you can identify actions and people from both sides of politics, and from the public service of the Northern Territory, and from the general public, who have played a very significant role in it. I can remember the member for Brennan coming into this House when the deal had been closed, and I can still remember the look on his face when he came in, he got the railway finalised, as a deal. That is history. It is not something that we can reconstruct in this House. I can remember when our Chief Minister went to lobby our side of politics in Canberra with just as much intensity to try to get this project through to its fruition.
The history is there for all to see, it goes back 100 years. I do not believe there is any point in blighting the enjoyment of this moment in the Territory’s history by trying to argue about who did and who did not do what to get the railway here. It is just important that it is here.
I missed both of the trains. At one stage I was flying to Melbourne, and I flew over the freight train, and the next time I was flying from Darwin to Alice Springs and I managed to fly over The Ghan as it left Alice Springs. However, for all of that, coming in on the evening flight and seeing The Ghan pulling up the first incline north of Alice Springs with the setting sun picking up the red of the engines, it was just a fantastic sight. It really moved your emotions to see that first train cutting up north of Alice Springs, the first passengers to go up towards Darwin. It was fantastic, and for everyone who had a hand in that, good on you. It has been a terrific effort to get it into the Northern Territory.
My job as regards the railway started, probably unofficially, about three years ago when we had forums in Alice Springs to let the community know what the potential impact was of the railway. There were so many fits and starts about getting the final deal in place that there were preparations for the final deal well before it was finally brought into place. This forum was held at Rydges, from memory. There was much talk then about the impact it was going to have on Alice Springs. I can remember having a briefing from Barry Coulter several years before the change of government, and he was projecting even then that there was going to be significant losses in the trucking industry in Alice Springs, and related industries such as the tyre, fuel and repair places, spare parts. It did not take a brain surgeon to work that out because, obviously, a lot of that north bound freight was going to stay on the train, and a lot of the freight coming from Adelaide to Alice Springs was going to go on the train. We have spent probably ever since trying to second guess what immediate or final impact there was going to be on the industry in Alice Springs.
It was interesting going around the trucking firms because some of them - for example, the ones that cart from the national distribution points for supermarkets to the supermarkets in Alice Springs, and I would imagine in Darwin as well - want to go ramp to ramp, so they are not interested in the train. With some of the fuel shipments, it was more about the capacity of fuel storage in the distributor’s facilities in Alice Springs or Darwin than it was about the cost of transporting the fuel. They were much more interested to get fuel exactly when they needed it, matching the facilities that they were trying to run. It was anyone’s guess really - and it still is - as to exactly what the final impact will be.
However, we know from the immediate surveys of businesses around Alice Springs, we have lost 35 odd jobs, I think, from about three of our firms. That was expected. The trucking industry, along with other industries such as construction, are very mobile and trucking firms will go where the work is available if they have to. We could not really set ourselves the task of fully replacing the trucking jobs in Alice Springs. It was simply not a realistic aim to set ourselves.
What we have set ourselves as a government was to put back into the economy of Alice Springs the overall buying and earning power of the jobs that might be relocated in the trucking industry to other parts of the Territory or other parts of Australia. It is interesting to see that already we are seeing - I think from the member for Barkly - four or five new trucking jobs have appeared in Tennant Creek already. There is going to be a restructuring of the industry. There will be relocation of some workers and some resources, and trucking is a very mobile industry.
What we did was to set up a package that could be put into place as quickly as possible around the time the impact of the operation of the railway was to be felt in the Alice Springs economy. The member for Nhulunbuy has indicated one of the major elements of that package, and that is the Desert Knowledge Precinct decision by our government. Again, it is a project which I acknowledged in Alice Springs at the launch last week had bipartisan support. I appreciate very much that the CLP has stuck with us on that and provided support for that project. It is crucial, critical, project for development for Alice Springs and the Alice Springs economy. What it is doing is building a significant new level of activity into the knowledge economy in Central Australia.
We are not going to manufacture extensively in Central Australia because the logistics are all against it. What we have, though, is some existing very strong research activities. We have strong teaching of tertiary education activities already in the town. We have lots of very useful, practical, applied knowledge that has built up over the years in terms of remote arid zone living - whether it be in primary industries such as pastoralism or horticulture, or whether it is the maintenance of remote communities or urban communities such as Alice Springs. We have learnt much over the years and there is a lot of accumulated knowledge that can be built on.
The Desert Knowledge Precinct will give a form to the further development, commercialisation, of that knowledge, the development of a smart community to grow the tertiary economy in Central Australia. We would expect the first and most obvious impact of it to be 245 to 250 jobs - depending on who you talk to - in the construction industry for the next three years. Therefore, in terms of the general economy of Alice Springs, that totally negates any negative impact of the railway on the overall level of employment in Central Australia. We will have more jobs on that project for the next three years than we would ever lose out of the trucking industry due to the railway. We believe that we have gained in all respects by taking that decision: $20.9m already committed in real money in the budget with an additional allocation to come for stage 2 in the project. The $20.9m already committed to capital works is to build the whole of stage 1, which is all the working areas of Desert Knowledge, that is the library, it is the contemporary museum of Arid Zone Living and Cultural Living, the teaching spaces for Batchelor College, CAT, administrative areas and the research areas that will be based on that precinct.
That precinct is fully integrated with the CSIRO and it is fully integrated with Arid Zone Research Institute of Primary Industry. We have a very powerful precinct now where there is going to be a lot of teaching, research, applied development, and contemporary cultural work. It will be great for tourists because it is right on the airport road and opposite Yirrara College. So we have a fantastic synergy of different things put together there. So, there are 250-odd jobs going back into the Alice Springs economy.
Additional to that we have put out $3m of additional road works. We had to do that anyway because the road network in Central Australia is being degraded. In fact, throughout the Territory, we have significant issues with the loss of utility of our road network. It is quite clear that it is appropriate for government at the moment to be increasing the effort on the upkeep and upgrade of our road network, particularly beef roads and the roads to the communities. That $3m translates into trucking jobs, impacts on tyre suppliers, spare part suppliers, fuel suppliers, the very people who have been up till now supplying the trucking industry. We will have to maintain an enhanced level of activity on our roads well into the future. We believe that the immediate impact that that decision will have on those parts of the existing industry will be maintainable into the future. We will probably have to enhance activities on the roads well beyond the announced levels at the moment and that is being assessed through our processes at the moment.
A third area which is worth doing for its own sake, but it is certainly worth looking at, is specific public service units or jobs that are appropriately placed in Central Australia. That is not about going around and ambushing public servants in Darwin and elsewhere and saying, ‘We have a job for you but it is down in Alice Springs’. It is about looking at the types of capacity that we want within the public service in Central Australia that may not be fully represented there at the moment. Late last year, as an example of this, we opened a new Justice office, which has additional jobs in crime prevention and in the community justice projects that we are gradually rolling out around the Northern Territory, and some additional community corrections positions. It is the first time that the Justice Department has a recognisable public service unit in Alice Springs. It is six jobs and six families that are going to be working or able to live in Alice Springs on the basis of those public service jobs.
There are other jobs that are being assessed by the Public Service Commissioner, not many but just where it is appropriate to focus the work of a particular part of one our agencies in Alice Springs rather than up here. That just helps to redress any loss of employment within the Central Australian economy as a whole.
When you put all those things together, we have a pretty strong and appropriate response to the impact of the railway in Central Australia. We are confident that we have certainly prevented any overall negative impact and probably, if anything, we have come out with a bit of a nett profit on the number of jobs that we will have within the region. As minister for Central Australia I have to say that I am well pleased with that outcome. It is even better if you can move forward. I would have been happy to have held our ground but if we have extra jobs and extra activity into the economy down there, all the better. We need to keep growing, particularly, the tertiary economy in Central Australia.
I look forward to seeing positive sides to the railway. We are going to see more tourists stopping over, whether it is for the time the train is in transit in Alice Springs or whether people take a week between trains to see a bit of Central Australia, the Rock or to get around the Mereenie Loop. Our tourism industry is certainly hoping that we will get a spin-off from the increased passenger numbers that are coming up on The Ghan at the moment. We hope that the levels of ticket sales that the Chief Minister was talking about do not drop off, that they are maintained. There is very high interest being shown in what is one of the greatest train journeys in the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker, when you put all that together, it is fantastic. The train is here. We have sorted out some of the impacts that we did not want to see in Central Australia. Now we can look forward to all the benefits.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I take great pleasure in making comment in respect of this ministerial statement. At the outset, it is pleasing that this statement has come before us today for one reason: laid down for the historical record are the names of so many people who have been involved in this railway project, many of whom I do not know personally. Of course, I do know a number of them. It is particularly pleasing to know that when people search the historical record, those names are there for posterity. I am sure that every individual whose name is recorded will take great pleasure from it. I am very pleased with the Chief Minister’s statement.
Of course, there is only so much you can do in a ministerial statement. There are some names that are not there. I can point to one straight off, and that is John Howard. Maybe you should include Jeanette Howard in that as well, and Tim Fisher and others. But I do not say that as a criticism; with the best will in the world, there are names that are not recorded in the statement. Overall, it is a very important statement.
One of the things I might say – and I do not say this from a position of personal gain; I do not care if my name is not there – is that I searched the Parliamentary Library to determine whether there is a clear record on the history of the railway project. It is very hard to find; there are all sorts of statements, adjournment speeches, progress reports, comments in Appropriation Bills on the railway, but no concise history of the project from go to whoa. I hope that at some time in the future it might be a project that the government could commission; they may already have it in train. It would be a wonderful project for the posterity of Territorians as an historical record, either by a researcher from the Parliamentary Library or some other historical researcher.
The impact of the railway, even though I have been involved with it for some time, never really hit me personally until I had the opportunity to travel on The Ghan and we left Keswick Railway Station in Adelaide. Not only was it a wonderful reception with many thousands of people at the reception, but I was absolutely struck by the thousands and thousands of South Australians who lined that route all the way to the outskirts of Adelaide and beyond. There was a large reception in Port Augusta, and, of course, the wonderful reception that we received in the centres in the Northern Territory and from individuals all along the route.
I can tell you with some honesty that I was quite emotional when we came to the outskirts of Darwin, not least because my son was standing on top of a car waving a flag with a couple of his school mates near Palmerston, but to see Territorians welcoming that train and realising that it had finally all happened was particularly pleasing and will stay with me for the rest of my life.
The thing that struck me then was that it was South Australians and Territorians not just welcoming a train, it was, to my mind, the epitome of the Australian spirit. It was a reflection that we Australians together can overcome and achieve against the odds. I believe that is what people were applauding. They did not really care which individuals may have played a part in it. I believe each and every one of them felt, in their own way, that, as Australians, something wonderful and lasting for Australia had been achieved, that a new transcontinental route right through the centre of Australia had become a reality. It was certainly a great pleasure to be involved in the final aspects of the completion of the railway and the first travel on The Ghan.
I would like to encapsulate this whole railway project in a couple of areas. One is the importance of leadership and, secondly, the fact that we Territorians can achieve anything against the odds, providing we put sufficient effort into achieving it. I believe that is what the railway, in terms of its achievement, really means for Territorians. If one wishes to speak about leadership, you can filter it all down really to one person, and that is Barry Coulter. The simple fact is that Barry Coulter has been involved in this project for many, many years. I certainly never came to the project, and then really as an observer, in Cabinet, until 1995. Barry Coulter, primarily supported by Neil Conn and Paul Tyrrell, had been with the railway project for many years prior to that point. Coulter epitomises the sort of leadership that is needed for this sort of project, and he also epitomises it in a number of very interesting ways.
Anyone who knows Barry Coulter knows that he is probably a larrikin politician, a mischievous politician in getting his own way, a likeable politician. One of the greatest things about Coulter was that he could have an incredibly tough argument with someone in this Chamber and two minutes later they were on the best of terms. He had a wonderful way of broaching both sides of politics. For a person who had really come up through the school of hard knocks, one of the things that always impressed me about Coulter was that he had an absolutely photographic memory. Coulter could refer to anything and have the details in absolute accuracy on any of those issues, straight off the top of his head. I have never seen a person in Cabinet so persuasive. Certainly in the time I was in Cabinet, right through from 1995 onwards, I do not reckon that there would have been four Cabinet sessions that occurred without Coulter giving an update briefing on the railway.
Anyone who is in Cabinet now would know that there are times when Cabinet is pretty pressed, there is a lot of business to do. Coulter always had the overhead presentation, always gave the update briefings on the railway and, at times, from 1995 onwards, many were wondering just how this project would actually progress. Not only that, he was responsible primarily for the development of East Arm Port, and Coulter, more than anyone, could see that the railway was only one aspect of this whole concept of Darwin becoming a transcontinental hub for rail and shipping services up and down the centre of Australia, and also to the regions to our north, and from those regions down to our southern ports.
I can say with complete honesty the reason I got into politics was because when I was CO 2Cav, the first politician I met of any note was Barry Coulter. The reason I met him was that I was CO 2Cav when our vehicles took a short cut across a cattle station that we did not think would bother anyone. It happened to be owned at the time by the Deputy Chief Minister, which I found out very quickly, and we had done a fair amount of damage to his roads. So we fixed those, but in having our first conversation, I was absolutely struck with this unique Territory character.
It was the efforts of Coulter in order to put this project together that really gave it, over time, the impetus that it needed to carry others with it. Neil Conn is on the record as saying that he and Coulter, at one stage, were sitting together at some hotel after one of many briefings that they had with either consortia or individual organisations they were trying to get involved in the railway. He and Conn said that they thought at that stage that maybe they were the only two people in the world who believed that this railway could, and should, happen. I believe that is true.
The other important thing about Coulter in terms of leadership is not only those characteristics of infectious enthusiasm that can carry something through against the odds, but he was also very smart. Coulter knew his own weaknesses and always surrounded himself with the very best of people. In everything he did, Coulter had the best people that money could buy. He picked early with Neil Conn and one could surmise whether or not Coulter would have got all that far without the Under Treasurer being a devotee and a converted enthusiast for the railway. The two of them together, along with Paul Tyrrell, gathered others around them and gradually progressed the whole project.
The Chief Minister said in her statement that there were a number of milestones along the road. She said this included work by Hill of the Railway Executive Group. For the record, Hill did not help the railway at all; Hill scuttled the railway. When he was commissioned, I think by the Hawke government - and I do not say this as a criticism of Labor, it is important for the historical record - and if ever there was a time that I saw Coulter most despondent was after the Hill Report was released, because the Hill Report essentially scuttled the railway.
When one looks at the Wran Report that followed after that – the report on the Committee of Darwin -you have to ask yourself: who got this commission? It might have been commissioned by a Labor government, but I can tell you that it was probably done more than anything by the urgings of Coulter who could work with guys like Laurie Brereton, and was on very good terms with Paul Keating and Bob Hawke. As I said, the ability of this particular Territory politician to walk at any level and be able to deal with politicians of other persuasions and get what he wanted, really was the reason that Wran Report was commissioned. The Wran Report was essential. It talked about the future of Darwin and Commonwealth relations in progressing Darwin. However, Coulter’s aim primarily was to get a new methodology done on the railway.
The Chief Minister has said that it was the Wran Report in 1995 which restored the confidence of Territorians when it found that the railway was not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’. It is worth reminding ourselves just what the Wran Report actually said. The Wran Report was not all that good. I will quote from the report:
- Recommendation 28: The committee found that, at present, the proposed Alice Springs to Darwin railway is not
economically viable. The railway will, however, probably become viable in the future. How long it takes to become
viable will depend largely on freight growth. The committee recommends that the Commonwealth continue to keep
under review the viability of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, giving particular attention to economic and
population growth in the Northern Territory, technological developments in transport, and mineral developments
with the potential to lead to large freight flows.
What Wran was saying was not ‘if’ but ‘when’, I guess. However, in reality they were saying that the economic circumstances in the Northern Territory were not here.
Another interesting aspect of the Wran Report is this, particularly now when one talks about the importance of The Ghan. Also, it is a reminder of how these particular reports have to be seen for their own flaws and not necessarily as scientific, as many of the authors would hope. Wran himself said with regards to the evaluation of the viability of the railway that it should be a freight only train in practice.
- The railway would need to be subsidised to run passenger services because Australian long distance passenger
services are unprofitable.
It is instructive to see that sort of comment at a time when we are saying, firstly, The Ghan is not being subsidised and, when it comes to whether or not it is going to profitable, it is already recording enormous profits at the outset.
The other point that I wanted to make with regards to the historical record, the Chief Minister talked about the various milestones, talked about the contribution from each of the governments. It was an enormous effort right at the outset to get $100m from Prime Minister John Howard, as he himself said at the function here after the freight train arrived. In many respects, one of the greatest persuaders was his wife, Jeanette, and we knew that. We always made sure that Jeanette was well and truly briefed on what was going on with the railway. The Chief Minister at the time, Shane Stone, persuaded John Howard to contribute $100m of Commonwealth money. This was before a consortium had been selected. That was a very important start point in order to get the Commonwealth to make their own contribution.
At the time, it was $100m from the Northern Territory and also $100m from South Australia. In that regard, due to the circumstances of South Australia in terms of their financial situation, it was a very difficult decision for the South Australian government to make. The South Australian government committed also $100m. So, there was a $300m commitment from the three governments. We set about then going through the process of getting the consortium selected and the Chief Minister has laid that down in her statement. Eventually, the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium, led by Kellogg Brown & Root, was the successful consortium selected.
It was a hard road from then on because it was one thing to have $300m, it was one thing to have the consortium selected, but it was another issue then to get down to the hard business of really deciding what would be the contribution from the private sector and what would be the contribution from the governments. We knew that we needed a lot more than $300m quantum from the three governments. I can remember the first meeting I went to with the Prime Minister where we were basically saying that we had this successful consortium, we needed additional money from the Commonwealth, what a great project it was for everyone, and could we get more money, Prime Minister, please? I remember before we went into that meeting that I said to Rick Allert, ‘You do the talking’, because I knew that Rick Allert was pretty friendly with John Howard. In most of the meetings it was Rick Allert who led the discussions that we had with the Prime Minister.
Rick Allert is mentioned in the Chief Minister’s statement and he is one I would just mention again. The Northern Territory has used Rick Allert on a number of occasions over the years. He is probably one of the smartest operators around and also indicative of the sort of people that Coulter surrounded himself with. If you look at projects that Coulter has been involved with in the Northern Territory, you can generally find Rick Allert’s name in there as well. Rick Allert led the Australian Railway Corporation as its chairman, representing as well the South Australian government, and supported by Paul Tyrrell, the Chief Executive Officer of the AustralAsian Railway Corporation and also the CEO of the Chief Minister’s department.
Paul Tyrrell is a stand out public servant. He is probably out in the background embarrassed at anything that we are saying because he always keeps a low profile. Indicative of his capacity is the fact that this government has been particularly well served by Paul Tyrrell. I am sure everyone on the opposite side of the House would attest to the incredible capacity he has across a wide range of areas, and to achieve what is in the Territory’s interest. Coulter identified him early. He has always been a protg - well, I do not know who was whose protg, they would probably argue the point, it is a moot point - but they certainly worked together and continue to work together. Paul Tyrrell, who has been involved in this project from day one, deserves the highest of accolades.
When you are dealing with a consortium that has the robustness of the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium, when you are dealing with organisations such as Kellogg Brown & Root, owned by Halliburton, organisations such as Barclay Mowlem and John Holland, and those sorts of organisations, these people play for keeps. They play for keeps with millions of dollars. Someone there representing the Territory’s interests has to be as smart or smarter than them to achieve what we wanted for the Northern Territory. Paul Tyrrell was the man to do it.
The Chief Minister made comment that after we achieved financial close, there was a setback in January 2001 when the Hancock Group, a major investor, pulled out of the project. However, in March 2001, the three governments agreed on a support package on commercial terms of an additional $79.2m. May I say that it was a bigger story than that; it was almost the death knell of the project when Hancocks pulled out. I remember being at Taronga Park Zoo - I think it was New Year’s Day in 2001 – when I received a phone call, as I recall, from the United States, I think it came from Kellogg Brown & Root, to say that Hancocks had pulled out. We were around $80m short on the project at a time when all the investments were so finely balanced, when the general opinion of all commentators in Australia was that the project should not go ahead. It was a critical point in the project. If there is anything that can be said arising from that, it is a fact that the last thing we needed then was the politics that were played because …
Dr LIM: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the member for Brennan be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE: because it is important that we do not make those mistakes again. This government has embarked on some major projects, one of which is the wharf precinct. We are talking about $600m of taxpayers’ money. If there is fault in terms of the fact that I never kept the opposition suitably briefed on the details of those problems, I accept that entirely, but notwithstanding that, the project was nearly destroyed because Hancocks pulled out.
I can tell you now that at the time, there were allegations that there were back-room deals done with regards to the Darwin-Katherine transmission line. I can tell you that I was put under enormous pressure about that transmission line. I resisted that pressure and made sure that the process was followed absolutely properly, and that in itself raised the ire of a few people, not least being Paul Everingham who was in equity partnership with Hancocks at the time. I was under enormous pressure to do a deal with Hancocks, and I would not. Hancocks pulled out of the project and the results that followed soon after that were a call for a public inquiry from Warren Snowdon – in fact the words used were ‘royal commission’. I can read from the NT News at the time:
- Mr Snowdon said more transparency and accountability was needed in the investment of about $480m of public
money in the project.
Syd Stirling also came out wanting to know what was going on. That put a tremendous pressure on investors who were still in the project trying to convince their boards – and many of them had gone above board approval at that stage by staying in the project – that they needed to put more investment into the railway. It was an enormously difficult period, trying to secure that extra $80m.
One of the nicest things that has been said to me about the railway project was said by Franco Moretti who was the chief bid negotiator for the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium. He said to the Prime Minister at the dinner after the freight train arrived that ‘when things were darkest for the consortium, Denis Burke kept the light shining’. I am proud that he said that because we did. The simple fact was that I gave Paul Tyrrell instructions, privately, that if all else failed, the Northern Territory would meet the $80m shortfall. We did not have to do that, but the CLP government was prepared to do it and would have done it if we had to. But privately armed with that information, Paul Tyrell could continue to negotiate, and negotiate hard and well, and walk away from the table when things were not going his own way because he knew that he was supported by the Northern Territory government by that $80m shortfall if things fell over. That is an untold part of the story but it is important to put it on the public record.
Others are mentioned, Larry Bannister and Alastair Shields, two public servants who worked closely with Paul Tyrrell. He knows how much they did. I saw them operating long hours continuously at the merchant banks in Sydney. They did not seem to sleep in the closing weeks and months of that project, surrounded by reams of contractual documentation, trying to settle the project at a time when the boards of each of the consortia were getting more and more frustrated, and more and more concerned about whether or not they should stay in this project. So, those people alone, Rick Allert, Paul Tyrrell, Larry Bannister, and Alastair Shields, from my personal experience, deserve the highest accolades from Territorians for what they did in that project.
The Chief Minister mentioned Malcolm Kinniard, Chairman of the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium, and Andrew Fletcher, CEO of Kellogg Brown & Root, owned by Halliburton. I first met Malcolm Kinniard when he came to Darwin, accompanied by the then Chairman of Halliburton, Dick Cheney, now the Vice-President of the United States. There is a whole story around that first meeting but, typical of Barry Coulter, within a couple of hours, Cheney had warmed to him, was convinced by seeing Coulter and knowing Malcolm Kinniard, that this was a project he should get involved in. I have said on many occasions that when people are dealing out accolades for who was involved in a project, do not ever forget Dick Cheney - his successor, David Lesar, was here and spoke at the freight train arrival - but Dick Cheney, I believe, more than anyone was the one who put the stamp on Halliburton to say this is the project we will back. As I said, when things got dark and investors got shaky, particularly some of the smaller institutional investors, it was the might and confidence of Halliburton, and Kellogg Brown & Root, that kept that whole project together.
The CEOs of the different constructors, John Holland, Barclay Mowlem, Macmahon, the Australian Railway Group and PGA Logistics, all deserve a special mention, and Tim Fisher, not mentioned in the ministerial statement, a great supporter and continued supporter of the railway, and someone I hope who is not disappearing from the railway scene. I have heard that his involvement is getting less and less. That would be a sad thing for his task because I believe really Tim Fisher’s task has just begun. I would hope that between the South Australian and Northern Territory governments they maintain Tim Fisher’s involvement because it is desperately needed.
Al Volpe from ADrail; the Chief Minister spoke about in the success of the construction project was something that is world class, to complete a project of that difficulty in the time they did it and the way they did was a wonderful achievement, and supported particularly by Duncan Beggs and on indigenous issues by Bob Collins. They deserve our accolades and also yes, of course, Bob Cush, also mentioned in the ministerial statement.
I must mention the Northern and Central Land Councils, because they deserve special mention, they could have been difficult; they were not. It points to us all the fact that on projects where indigenous people see the benefit, not only to them but primarily to all Territorians, all Australians, including indigenous people, they fully supported the project, they bargained hard, they bargained successfully and they bargained well on behalf of their own people, and full marks for all their efforts.
There are tremendous challenges ahead. I will not dwell on them now. They are laid out in the Chief Minister’s statement. Certainly, from my perspective, I agree with the member for Stuart and that is, it is time to look forward. We have thanked those who have been involved. I hope that, as I said, that in a more fulsome way something is commissioned to get a true history of the whole project. I believe it is important for posterity. Let us look ahead, let us see the challenges ahead and we can make this project a great one for all Territorians and all Australians.
May I just say there was a question today in the Chamber and I will take this opportunity to quickly mention it. When it comes to Defence support, this railway project is an example of what is needed to gain for the Northern Territory the issues that are happening within Defence at the moment. I would like to work cooperatively with the Northern Territory government on this. If we all understand what is involved with the joint training arrangements that the Americans are looking for, the opportunities for Bradshaw Station, for regional development in the Northern Territory, for upskilling our work force and getting great, new technologies in the Northern Territory, to become the regional centre for armoured operations, this is possible. However, we have strong competitors – Queensland, in particular - and we have strong concerns from arms of the United States Defence Force - namely the Marines -about the viability of Bradshaw. We can do it. We can achieve it if we recognise where the challenges are. If we all work together and the Northern Territory government puts the same sort of energy, leadership and expert team around this project as happened with the railway, then we will be successful.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, my comments will probably pale into insignificance after listening to the member for Brennan. What he has just stated just shows you the pain, I suppose, over many years that many people had to endure to come up with what is really a great project. Therefore, I am not going to speak here about all those people who have done those great things; that has been mentioned plenty of times. What the member for Brennan has said highlights the fact that a lot of effort, money, time, sweat, and tears went into something now which is just a great project and a great thing for the Northern Territory.
I went out to the arrivals of both the freight and the passenger trains. One of the things that I found of great joy is that now I can say I am going to see people off at the Darwin railway station. I will not call it a terminal, I will call it a station for the time being. Hopefully. it may be bigger one day. I have a photo of one of my constituents. I know it is not that big, but there is Yvonne O’Neill from Howard Springs who caught the train last Wednesday. I made sure that I went. I told people I was going to Darwin railway station to say goodbye to one of my constituents who paid for that ticket quite some time ago. The Elliott family from Elizabeth Valley are also going on that package tour. I think it was $895. You could go to Adelaide, stay two nights in Adelaide and fly back. Admittedly, they have to sit up, but they said they wanted to stay awake for the whole trip. I am not sure what they saw at 12 o’clock at night, but they said they did not want to miss one kilometre of the trip. Having a train there that you can go to, to meet people, and now see people off, is just great. It is something that I would not have believed we would ever have.
I was interested in the member for Brennan’s comments and what he read from the Wran Report that it would not be a passenger train. I remember Barry Coulter’s famous comment - maybe they were based on that Wran Report - that nothing with two legs would travel. I must admit I was sad when I heard that. I had always felt that, having travelled on the Indian Pacific, a passenger train to Darwin from southern states would be something that would have to make money. It would sell as something like the Trans-Siberian Railway or one of those great railway journeys of the world. I just think it is great.
I know we should not be criticising too much, but I was one of those who got their ticket to go to the railway station to see the passenger train arrive. I would love to know who said you could park all those white cars in front of all the people who wanted to watch the train, because someone just did not realise that people could not see the train properly because all the white cars for the guests were parked there. In actual fact, one of the police cars, the little Hilux, parked up there in front of the people. There was such a shout from the people trying to watch the train, they obviously realised they had parked in the wrong place and moved out. I know it is only a little thing but it was just one of those things that people forgot: people wanted to see the train, they did not want to see cars.
I would like to speak about some of the little things that have occurred since we finished the railway. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that there was an opportunity for us to try to use the railway for other things. I spent some time sitting next to the chairman of FreightLink, and I think also the chairman of FCL, on the night we had the railway dinner. The chairman of FreightLink mentioned about having a passenger train. I had raised that issue in the Alice Springs sitting about the possibility of a passenger train. Then I think the chairman of the Great Southern Rail said, ‘We are not a passenger train; we are a tourist train’. The government should seriously look at the possibility of having small rail, a motor rail, whatever you want to call it, on the line, whether it runs from Darwin to Katherine first, or whether it runs right down the track.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I think there is plenty of scope for train to move people, Territorians, back and forth. The Ghan is only going to run one day a week. If you ran a train from Darwin to Katherine I believe you would pick up backpackers going there - throw their bikes on the back; people from Darwin wanting a weekend away from Darwin; Katherine people wanting to come up and do some shopping in the shopping centres; sporting teams - a great way to bring teams both ways; special events like the Adelaide River races, the Pine Creek races - you could bring people to and from those events. It is a great opportunity for the government to look at that, you might say it is a micro-economy. For sure, we looked at the big picture, the big freight train, the big passenger train. Let’s see what we can do perhaps to help people within the Territory travel between towns.
We know that Alice Springs has the Masters Game and Finke Desert Race. Tennant Creek has its go-kart grand prix. So there are all those opportunities that we should look at. We should not just be relying on The Ghan because The Ghan will always be there as a fairly expensive, fairly tourist-oriented type of transport. We need to look at something that will just take passengers back and forth.
There are other little things that I did not realise that the train will have as a spin-off. I was talking to a firie today and he says that they are now doing training to work on the passenger train in case of an accident. There is a whole container load of special equipment being sent up that can be helicoptered out of Darwin in case of an accident on the train. They have to learn new skills because now we have a different form of transport that we did not have before.
I would also like to thank Duncan Beggs. I know Duncan Beggs has been mentioned a few times and I do not want to single many people out. I say that because people will know my concern about some of our World War II heritage and I was concerned that the railway would go through the infamous Livingston airstrip – which is now famous for other things. He made sure the railway corridor was as narrow at that point where it passed the Livingstone airstrip. It is normally at least 60 m wide; they brought it down to 40 m to make sure it did not destroy the actual strip. I thank Duncan for making sure that there was some effort made to retain our World War II heritage.
On heritage as well, there was talk about the Darwin Business Park. If anyone has been out there now you would see that a lot of the ground is flattened; the hill where East Arm Leprosarium was is just about gone, and that was a concern. I raised in the last sitting of parliament the issue of at least some heritage being retained to recognise the East Arm Leprosarium. I am told the government is working on some areas to be set aside to remind the people that the leprosarium did exist, so when the Darwin Business Park is full of big sheds and lots of equipments there is some way to remind us there was something else there many years ago.
There has also been talk about 50 000 containers. My concern is: where do those containers go? I may have quoted in parliament previously when I was discussing the future industrial expansion of Darwin that I thought they were looking at a million containers eventually. The siting of those containers is important. Presently, they expect to site those in the middle of the harbour. I believe we can certainly find a better place to site anything between 50 000 to a million containers. They are pretty drab things to look at, and the middle of the harbour is not the place to put them.
Just another little issue: I heard a gentleman talking about the train on the radio. He was on the sit-up part of the train and on the way back he could not get scrambled eggs. He could get toast, but he could not get scrambled eggs because he found out that they had nearly run out of eggs. He was intimating that, basically, the train had come to Darwin with a load of eggs and was not going to pick any up in Darwin. Whether they thought there were no eggs in Darwin, I am not sure. Whether the closure of Landell and some parts of Fresha had got back to Great Southern Rail, I do not know, but I certainly hope they do not run out of eggs again. That is not going to give either Darwin or Great Southern Rail a very good reputation if that is the case. It was just an aside that he mentioned on the way back to Adelaide.
My comments are basically that we have opportunities. They might be small opportunities compared to some of the big picture projects that the government is talking about. We should be trying to use the rail to its maximum. I certainly think a small train, a motor rail, would be a good investment. If the government does not think it is a bright idea, at least go out and do a bit of a feasibility study on it and come back to this parliament and say, ‘This is what it will cost to run and these are the possible opportunities that such a motor rail could facilitate’.
We must not forget what I call micro-tourism, small tourism that a lot of us as Territorians like. We like to get around within the Territory and a small train like that would be of great benefit.
I also congratulate all those people who built the railway. I will always remember lots of kids at the railways station, especially when The Ghan came in, waving those flags. Again, I am not trying to criticise too much, but it is a pity there were not more souvenirs. It was a great opportunity. When we were in Alice Springs to see the first sod turned, there were bottles of wine to remind us of the day. There were pegs you could buy. It was perhaps an opportunity that we missed, to work on the souvenirs, not just because we wanted to sell souvenirs, but because many people wanted to take a piece of the day home. I certainly have The Ghan flag and the Australian flag crossed up, sitting on top of my door as you come in because they were a great idea. Kids were waving those when the train came in. They certainly will not forget it and I will not forget it.
On the day, I took a picture of our local publican, Jim Elsdon. He used to own the Elliott Hotel and he has now bought the Howard Springs Tavern. He had his young son, Jack, on his arm. I took their photo in front of the train. He now has that up on top of the bar. It is his pride and joy. His little son will now remember the day that his dad took him to the first train coming to town. It is one of those days that I and a lot of people will remember. I congratulate everyone who was involved in getting it here.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that debate be adjourned.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I seek to speak, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Dr Toyne: No, I have moved. I am sorry.
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the debate be adjourned.
Mr DUNHAM: I would like to speak to the motion, then.
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the debate be adjourned.
Mr DUNHAM: I would like to speak to the motion.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the debate be adjourned.
Mr DUNHAM: What we have here, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker is …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not recognised you, member for Drysdale. The question before the Chair is that debate be adjourned.
Mr DUNHAM: And I am speaking to that, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Dr Toyne: You have not been acknowledged to speak!
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no debate allowed on the motion, member for Drysdale. The question is that the debate be adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Building Healthier Communities: A Five Year Framework for Health and Community Services
Building Healthier Communities: A Five Year Framework for Health and Community Services
Dr TOYNE (Health): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight, together with my colleague, the Minister for Family and Community Services, I will talk about change; the kind of change that the people of the Territory elected the Labor government for; the type of change that will make a real difference to families and communities across the Territory.
Yesterday, we released our five year framework for change, Building Healthier Communities: a framework for Health and Community Services, 2004-2009. It sets the Martin government’s broad health and community services agenda up to and beyond the next election. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work that my predecessor in the health portfolio did towards the preparation of this statement.
It sets the path towards better health services, better community services, and a hospital and health service system that works for Territorians, where and when they need it. The task ahead as Health Minister is quite daunting, and I certainly will be taking to it with a great degree of humility. Before I go on to outline those parts of the framework for which I will be responsible, I take this opportunity to say a few words about my new health portfolio.
I approach the job as Health Minister with a very real appreciation of the challenge that lies before us. Health and health services are a complex business. Needs and expectations are always high, and resources for expenditure on health services are always limited. Distance and lack of infrastructure pose an additional challenge to the delivery of services to people living in remote and regional areas in the Territory. In fact, it is for these reasons that I approach this job with a great deal of humility, but also with a sense of purpose and excitement about working in a portfolio where there are abundant opportunities to make real gains to the quality of Territorians’ experiences and lives.
The five-year framework that the Minister for Family and Community Services and I launched yesterday sets out this government’s plans to take those opportunities and turn them into real gains for Territorians. In the framework, we have identified six key priority areas for sustained action. Over the next five years, the Martin government will work to:
- 1. give kids a good start in life. Protecting and nurturing our children is fundamental to breaking generational cycles of
ill health and ensuring the next generation of Territorians is healthier than this one;
are a critical factor in achieving and maintaining good health;
system delivers better health for all Territorians;
and
abuse of prescription drugs.
- 1. we will build a sustainable quality health and community services system and enforce high standards of accountability
and quality;
2. we will create better ways of working together to build healthier and stronger communities. We must work across all areas
of government and with the non-government sector, the unions and the community itself - we cannot make real gains if we
work in isolation;
unique opportunities of the Territory; and
to support our work force, and to increase Territorians’ ability to get help when they need it, regardless of where they live.
Giving kids a good start in life and improving the health of the next generation: we have many reasons to focus on giving the children of the Territory the best start in life possible. Almost one-third of the Territory’s population is under 20. What we do now for children, delivering better health and other services, can make enormous improvements to health for many years to come. The Minister for Family and Community Services will expand on this important area in her speech. I want to talk tonight about how we will improve the health of the next generation of Territorians through integrating clinical care and public health approaches across the course of people’s lives.
Current knowledge suggests health outcomes are a cumulative impact of both risk and protective factors throughout life, beginning with the prenatal period and early infancy. At present, caring for sick babies, particularly Aboriginal babies, is a significant area of hospital activity. This is an indication of the seriousness of conditions affecting some Aboriginal newborns and a reflection of the adverse influences during pregnancy. With a relatively young population and high fertility and birth rates in the Territory, ensuring access to effective antenatal care in the community can have a significant impact.
Good nutrition and growing up in a stimulating and nurturing environment is now known to have a positive impact on brain development, competence and coping skills of an individual in adult life. Studies suggest that the window of opportunity to make a real impact on learning ability, behaviour and health is in early childhood up to six years of age, and we will focus services for that period. It is clear that by working towards ensuring more kids grow up in a supportive environment, will have positive impacts on their health and wellbeing. It is also clear that children who grow up in that environment will be better able to learn at school, to gain employment, and to contribute to their community. This is an important element in helping to break the cycle of dysfunction that is evident in many of our remote communities.
We are currently recruiting child health professionals to work in remote and rural areas of the Territory. This child health initiative will mean that rural and remote communities will have better access and greater support from a range of professionals including audiologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, Aboriginal health workers and nutritionists. This initiative will result in better child health monitoring, prompt treatment of health problems, and increased access to specialised treatments. The Building Healthier Communities framework will be a catalyst for all areas of the health and community services sector that work with children and families to work in tandem. Together they can transform the experience of children and families and help ensure our next generation is a healthier one, better placed for a good start in life.
Getting serious about Aboriginal health: this government is committed to ensuring our health and community services system delivers better health for all Territorians. The bulk of Territorians living in our urban centres and towns share a health profile similar to the rest of Australia and other first world nations. We live long and healthy lives. We have access to services that are equal to or better than comparable to the cities and towns anywhere else in Australia. Our hospitals are of a high standard, staffed by highly-trained, dedicated health professionals and support staff. Our families have access to high-quality child care, aged care and other community services. In that sense, we can be proud of health and community services system.
However, we all know that it is a very different picture for up to a third of the Territory’s population. Indigenous Territorians, a generation after self-government, are still dying on average nearly 20 years younger than the rest of us. Many indigenous Territorians do not have access to the same level of service that other people in the Territory do, both in terms of where the services are offered and whether they match the standards that we, as Territorians, should all enjoy.
My colleague, the Minister for Family and Community Services, and I are committed to tackling these challenges, and we are committed to tackling them with a sense of urgency. We do not underestimate the challenge, but action must begin now. Our Building Healthier Communities framework signals our commitment to that work. We are determined to move beyond the good intentions and the rhetoric. In the end, it is results on the ground that count.
To make a difference in the lives of Aboriginal people, we have to ensure that across the whole of government we provide the support and services that will allow Aboriginal people to take responsibility for their health. This work must be based on sound and practical working relationships developed with Aboriginal groups, organisations, and with the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory. We are seeking pathways to work together to make real and sustained improvements. This work will also be based on sound data and good evidence so that Aboriginal people are getting the best health care and so communities can work together with the department to find local solutions that will work on the ground, recognising always that the core, non-negotiable element is the availability of primary health care services.
Our renewed focus on Aboriginal health will affect every part of our health and community services system. This will require close and ongoing attention to many discrete factors. However, year by year, we want to be able to see some measurable progress and we are committed to this. In the coming months, I will present a five-year Aboriginal health action plan which will be driven by our new Office of Aboriginal Health in consultation with the Aboriginal health sector. The principles that underpin the Aboriginal health action plan will be the same as those in the framework: a commitment to strong working relationships with the Aboriginal community; to evidence and understanding cultural factors; and to directing our work and our resources to those areas that promise the most in terms of sustainable health gains.
Creating better pathways for health services: another commitment in our Building Healthier Communities framework is to create better pathways to health services. Our health and community services should ideally be provided as close to the place as Territorians live, as practically possible, and we will work towards that goal. This is important for the suburbs and for the bush. For hospital services, we will continue to work to improve the scope and quality of the hospital service available in the Territory by building on the range of services that have already been established in our two larger hospitals. We will continue to work to improve access to primary healthcare. We will push the Commonwealth to provide more resources for better support and for allied health services at local level. We will continue to push the Commonwealth to recognise the unique circumstances of the Territory.
We will also continue to act on our commitments on the recruitment and retention of nurses and Aboriginal health workers. We will move to increase the supply of doctors for the Territory in cooperation with the Commonwealth government, the general practice divisions and other professional groups. Establishing renal dialysis units in communities, which I will talk about later in more detail, is a good practical example of our commitment to ensure accessibility of health services in the remote parts of the Territory and an essential element of our push on Aboriginal health.
We will also tackle remoteness by a new emphasis on information and communications technology to extend services such as ear and eye health, psychiatry, and antenatal care into regional areas. Another important commitment in this area is we will develop and expand the Specialist Outreach Medical Service to increase the delivery of medical, surgical and obstetric services, for example, in the communities where people live. It is critical for the Territory that all Territorians can access health and community services where they need them and we will work towards that goal.
Closing our service gaps: after being in the portfolio only a short time it is apparent that there are some key areas on which we must focus our attention. The health service needs of a population change over time and it is clear that through the years of neglect, a number of service areas in our health system have failed to keep up with the changing needs of Territorians. This government is determined to turn that situation around.
In the area of kidney disease, renal disease in the Territory is continuing to rise. We are determined to tackle this area of chronic ill health, to stem its increasing incidence, and reduce the social dislocation imposed on people forced to move away from their communities for treatment and the management of their condition. Credit where it is due - the previous government correctly identified the immerging burden of kidney disease concentrated in the Aboriginal population and introduced a number of measures including the Preventable Chronic Diseases Strategy. We have gone much further with our decision to move care closer to home for people with end stage renal disease and thereby reduce the social dislocation of separation from kin and community. Last year, we funded renal dialysis units at Tennant Creek, Galiwinku, Groote Eylandt and in Palmerston.
We also provided financial support to the Western Desert Nganampa Walytja Palyantjaku Tjutaku Aboriginal Corporation in their endeavours to establish dialysis in the Kintore Community. My apologies to Pintubi speakers for my rather difficult effort there! This service delivery reform has been welcomed in remote areas and we plan to open new dialysis centres in Ramingining, Santa Teresa and Maningrida, followed by new centres in Wadeye, Katherine and Numbulwar.
Our response to renal disease is, of course, more than treatment and management. Over the next five years we will concentrate on a more solid implementation of the Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy. Staffing numbers in remote health services will be increased with additional remote area nurses, Aboriginal health workers and community child health workers to be based in remote communities across the Territory. The Northern Territory is already acknowledged nationally and internationally to have achieved excellence in the development of evidence-based protocols to assist in the prevention, early detection and management of chronic diseases. We will build on this expertise by progressively implementing the standard protocols in remote community clinics across the Northern Territory. Regular audits will be carried out to check adherence to the chronic diseases treatment protocols. The systematic implementation of the protocols will be supported by relevant training to ensure our enhanced remote health work force will have the skills they need.
At the same time, we are developing integrated programs which will be designed to catch people with chronic renal insufficiency earlier so that with lifestyle change and treatment they may be able to delay or avoid the need for dialysis.
Oral health is another area of neglect that this government has been addressing. These services have been integrated and are now run as a Territory-wide service, as recommended in the Bansemer Review. This structure will enable a redistribution of current dental resources to ensure an equitable level of oral health service across the Territory. We are committed to increasing access to these services. While we have to acknowledge the reality of operating in a climate of international and national work force shortages, we are currently undertaking an aggressive recruitment campaign for dentists for the Territory, and we hope to see some positive outcomes soon.
HIV Aids: the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted disease in the Territory is an area that requires sustained attention over the next few years. With the highest rates of sexually transmitted disease in Australia, we must act. We will be looking closely at the effectiveness of existing programs and services. We are developing a long-overdue strategy for the prevention and management of sexually transmitted infections and blood-borne viruses, which will be underpinned by additional funding from next financial year of $2m per year, which rises to $2.5m after that. These are three areas for close attention. The Minister for Community Services will outline further work in her portfolio area in her statement.
Strengthening the health system: part 2 of the framework deals with the support measures that we will be taking to strengthen the health system itself. I will move now to the details of those developments.
Building quality health and community services: first, I want to talk about our drive to improve standards across the Territory. The Bansemer Review recommended that the department be organised around discrete program areas rather than the failed funder-purchaser-provider model, which showed more faith in some mythical health ‘market’ than in professional evidence and leadership. The department has now identified program areas for hospitals and the different community services. It has programs for other health services, including remote and public health services, and program areas that provide vital organisational support and corporate services.
Networking: a major benefit flowing from the program model is the NT-wide hospital network that has been established and now links our five public hospitals into one system; five battleships into one navy, if you like. Working as one system has distinct advantages. We have already seen senior RDH specialists working in the intensive care and anaesthetic services in Alice Springs Hospital. Suddenly, everyone is watching out for the entire hospital network, not just for their own patch. The hospital network will bring other benefits by streamlining recruitment, improved support for new staff, and enhanced professional development and training. Instead of each hospital purchasing equipment and goods, it will be done by the network and thereby accrue some economies of scale.
Clinical collaboration: a related development to the hospital network is the concept of clinical streaming where specialists who work primarily in Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals now offer their expertise and leadership across the continuum of care and contribute to discussions of standards, including primary health care. Senior specialists have long provided services on an outreach basis to remote communities, and contributed to the development of primary care guidelines such as the CARPA guidelines, which is the treatment bible for all primary health care workers in the Northern Territory. Clinical Reference Groups are being established to bring together specialist doctors and other professionals involved in clinical services so that they can identify the best practice for our health system and promote the use of evidence-based care. These have already been established in the areas of renal, critical care and palliative care. Other areas of practice will follow.
Standards: one of the main benefits of this program-led model is the ability to set and monitor standards of care across all regions. My mantra is ‘standardisation and then customisation’. We must first define our core business, key priorities and non-negotiable programs and the standards to which they must operate. Only then can we look at how best to deliver those in the different local circumstances that characterise the Northern Territory. As member for Stuart, I have picked up some of the reaction to the restructure in the region. Some people fear it may mean a loss of local control and that all decisions will be made in Darwin. I can certainly reassure people in my area that this will not be the case.
The work on appropriate standards will include all regions and be reviewed regularly. Once decisions are made, local regions will decide how best to implement those standards in their region, but by monitoring and holding people to accepted standards, will erase the Berrimah Line perception that Darwin people are somehow favoured. Defining standards is critical to the operation of our health and community care system, and we will ensure that non-government organisations, GP divisions, and the Aboriginal community-controlled health sector are kept involved.
The commitment to accounting for the safety and quality of services provided is a major cultural change flowing from the Bansemer recommendations. We must account for safety and quality with the same rigour that we account for dollars spent. In Australia, the landmark Quality in Australian Health Care study, conducted in 1996, revealed a high rate of preventable deaths in Australian hospitals, many of which could be fairly described as treatment-related. The release of that study stimulated vigorous media and political debate and led to the formation of the National Safety and Quality Council, and the incorporation of ‘quality funding’ into Australian Health Care Agreements.
Improved clinical governance is one important development that will enhance safety. Better clinical governance will be achieved through developing a framework which ensures the highest possible safety and quality of clinical care. The crucial element, and the hardest element to get right, is the partnership between clinicians and managers, with both sharing responsibility for clinical quality. We are actively promoting such partnerships across the department and are determined to get them right.
We are also committed to changing the health system culture, moving away from the ‘culture of blame’, where the individual is singled out, towards a learning and systems-based approach that acknowledges that all human beings err sometimes and that systems need to be designed with that in mind. If we continue to punish innocent mistakes, we will be doomed to put up with a system that does not improve and one where individuals are too scared to take responsibility. We are determined to move beyond that. Bruce Barraclough, president of the Australian Council on Safety and Quality, has described the safety and quality agenda as being about ‘building good systems around good professionals’, and that is our aim.
To promote improved clinical governance in the Northern Territory, we will set up a Northern Territory-wide Safety and Quality Council to complement the current Acute Care Quality Committee which focusses on crucial hospital issues. This new council will act to promote innovation, collaboration, and improve safety standards right across the health system.
There is no quick fix, but there are a number of key programs and processes that we will establish:
- ∙ a more transparent complaints process linked to education about open disclosure standards;
and experience; and
by clinicians in conference for audit type purposes.
I will also ask the NT Safety and Quality Council to look at the issue of cultural safety in mainstream systems dealing with high numbers of Aboriginal clients.
Creating better ways of working together: to build a healthier community we need to commit to working with all areas of government, and with the community and its organisations. The complex social realities in the Northern Territory, which impact on the health and wellbeing of many Territorians, will never be solved by one department acting alone. This government’s focus on jobs, education, housing, regional development and community safety will underpin the successful implementation of the Building Healthier Communities framework. We know that having a good education, getting a job and living in proper housing are critical factors to good health, as is being able to live in a safe and functioning community. The government’s commitment to economic development of the Territory, to jobs and training, to implementing the Collins report, and to tackling crime and providing the resources for crime prevention and safer communities will all contribute to building healthier communities.
Within the health sector, I have already talked about the need to work in partnership with Aboriginal organisations to achieve our goal of better health for those Territorians. But it does not stop there. We will strengthen and deepen the relationships with all organisations working in the health sector. We will implement this framework with a real commitment to consultation, working together and relying on each other’s expertise to devise practical initiatives and solutions. We will provide the resources to the community sector and to peak bodies so they are able to contribute to this joint work. We will establish proper advisory structures so stakeholders contribute to our policy and strategic directions. We will also increase the involvement of consumers and carers across the health and community services system.
One way we will do this is by acting on the Bansemer recommendation to increase community involvement in the department’s policy development and service delivery process by establishing a Health Advisory Council, a Family and Community Services Advisory Council, and by upgrading the existing Disability Advisory Board to council status. The Health Advisory Council will report to me. I will be in a position to make further announcements on this very soon.
I will now turn to how we will support professionals working in our system. Our people are vital to our success. We will address the weaknesses in human resource management identified in the Bansemer review so that our work force feels safe, valued, respected and supported to perform their roles. We will develop and implement a work force training and development strategy, and strengthen our relationship with local tertiary institutions so graduates have the best possible education and training for the Northern Territory.
Recruitment of a skilled work force will continue to be a major challenge for the period 2004-2009 as national and international shortages reduce the available labour market, particularly in dentistry, and some categories of allied health such as pharmacists and nursing speciality areas. We will initiate and support national initiatives to work to address these shortages.
Retention of existing staff is the other part of the equation. We are keen to retain people who are prepared to embrace the challenges and opportunities of working in the Territory. We will develop and implement strategies to recruit and retain quality staff, including by encouraging a coordinated response to accommodation, particularly in remote areas. We will recognise formally the role of nurse-practitioners in rural and remote areas, and link recruitment to training opportunities. Importantly, we will continue to build on work to protect the safety of our staff. We will also strive to ensure that the departmental work force reflects the diversity of the Territory community.
Creating a health information communications network: moving to the final element of the framework which will build a stronger health and community services system, a particular passion of mine is exploring the ways that information and communication technology can enhance the day-to-day working conditions and family lives of our people and the communities they serve. The framework will be a catalyst for change in this important area. Most of the 67 departmental remote health centres do not have access to on-line data communications. Only 17 have access to Internet-based e-mail through a two-way satellite service, but this is slow and cannot be securely connected to the government’s on-line wide area network. We cannot continue to operate this way. Building a robust and extensive health information and communications network will provide, for the first time, full access for remote area staff to the government network, Internet and a secure electronic mail system.
Through this network, remote health practitioners can be supported by on-line health information for their day-to-day jobs, and on-line training to continue their professional development while they work in the more remote areas of the Territory. The development of this network will also be an important step to increase the support provided to the 600 to 700 staff that reside in, or provide visiting services to, remote areas. Family links can be maintained more effectively through video-conferencing, and access to television broadcasts and Internet provides personal and professional support to our remote workers and will help to support our retention strategies.
Expanding public access to health information is also an important part of our plan. We will seek to build upon the NT Healthconnect trial, which is a giant Commonwealth-NT funded demonstration project in Katherine and surrounding Aboriginal communities. Healthconnect encourages people to access health information on-line, including their personal health information.
I will now turn to the next step on the path to building healthier communities across the Territory; and that is implementation. Making the best use of available resources is one of the tasks before us. Working in innovative and creative ways is the solution. We need to capitalise on the skills, expertise and commitment of the people who work in the Department of Health and Community Services. We need to implement this framework with a strong commitment to real partnerships and proper consultation with the community sector, the unions and other key stakeholders. We must also work with our community. We cannot impose healthier choices on Territorians, be they indigenous or non-indigenous Territorians. The paternalistic imposition of policies and service delivery models have not produced better health outcomes. Instead, we must involve communities in a process that ensures we deliver the services in the form that they want and will use.
The framework we launched yesterday sets out the government’s vision and priorities for the Department of Health and Community Services over the next five years. It builds on the solid foundations that have now been laid in the Department of Health and Community Services through implementing the recommendations of the Bansemer Review. The Martin government has listened to what Alan Bansemer had to tell us and we have acted.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the Department of Health and Community Services for their resilience in the face of change required to implement the report - never an easy process - for their hard work and their commitment to improving the system within which they work. Your work has created a department which is now in a position to work to implement this framework over the coming years and to make a real difference to the health of Territorians.
Words are cheap in health policy and the grand plans can often be merely that. We are determined this framework will not fall into that trap. Implementation action starts from today. The framework will directly inform business planning throughout the department. If properly implemented, with thorough consultation and true partnerships with the health and community services sector, the framework will ensure that the next generation of Territorians are healthier than the last.
In conclusion, in outlining our vision for health services, I stress the urgency I feel in taking on this task, but I also recognise that it is not possible to effect major change over night. We have set out this blueprint for a change across a five-year time frame that will require a sustained effort, but also a degree of flexibility so that the system of the future remains responsive to the changing needs of Territorians. It will also take determination and a commitment to follow through to ensure that these are not just empty words. I have that determination and that commitment. I look forward to reporting to the House as we move forward to implement the Building Healthier Communities framework.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a strange situation that we find ourselves in here tonight because we are going to have two statements from two ministers. What has occurred since the last sittings of this parliament is that we have seen the Minister for Health and Community Services sacked and in her place the ministership role divided between two ministers. We have a Minister for Health and a minister for community services. So, tonight, we have to deal with that in that two statements are going to be read and I, as the shadow for health and community services, have to respond to one that I have heard and the second one which I have only been able to read. It creates a situation here in parliament which I guess we are going to have to deal with as time goes by. I am interested to learn, and perhaps the minister in his response may like to make a comment about it, as to how it is going to affect, for example, the estimates process when we come to that, how you will be dividing your time there as well.
So turning to the first statement from the Minister for Health, quite frankly, it is about time that we got this. The Labor Party has been in government for over two years now and, quite frankly, we recently lost the best minister the Territory has ever had - according to her view - and in that time very little was done. We eventually got the Bansemer Report done after she pontificated over it for over 12 months and not a lot of action afterwards. So this looks like action is beginning to occur. I am pleased to see it.
Although, from reading it, there are a lot of platitudes in it and much of it sounds like stuff that has been said before. I put on the Hansard record a quote from somebody - and I will explain who in a moment - but the quote from this person is:
- But I am sceptical. Why? Because there must be enough health strategies piled up on dark and increasingly dusty
shelves in the offices of successive health ministers. Successive health ministers have talked about almost identical
problems in their portfolios, about the burden Territory Health Services faces, about the challenge of tackling the
poor health of Aboriginal Territorians, about the frustration of not being able to access appropriate levels of
Commonwealth funding. Then they have gone on to propose a whole range of contemporary sounding solutions.
That is a quote from our current Chief Minister when she was responding to a statement here in parliament five years ago. So often, we hear these words. It will be very interesting to see what actually changes as a result of these statements.
Going to the first statement from the Minister for Health, I note that some of the initiatives that the minister says he is going to be pursuing, for example, the recruitment of a skilled work force:
- … and we will initiate and support national initiatives to work to address these shortages.
That is it. There is no real indication of what the new government is going to do. There is nothing to say how many extra staff or how we will be able to measure the success of this program. Another one is to develop and implement strategies for retention. You would think that after nearly three years in government, we would get some real strategies and action as to what is going to be happening.
It is really quite a shame as far as I am concerned that our new Health minister has wasted his first statement to this House with something that really does not have any substance. It is a lot of platitudes strung together, the sorts of things that we have all heard before. What needs to be done is work on the major problems the system currently faces. For example, we have excessive waiting times for people needing admission into our hospitals. It has been reported in the paper within the last couple of weeks that one fellow had to wait for three days in the emergency department on a trolley for a bed at Royal Darwin Hospital. The same weekend, I am told, that 20 people were waiting for admission at Alice Springs Hospital. I have been told it was 20 people in Alice Springs Hospital and up to 30 people waiting in the emergency department for admission to Royal Darwin Hospital and one fellow, the one who ended up in the paper, was on a trolley for three days waiting for admission and eventual surgery to a fractured jaw.
This issue has come up time and time again in the last few years. There was a time early in 2003 when the media published quite graphic photos of trolleys lined up in the corridors of the old emergency department. At that time, the then minister said the problem was being caused by a ‘flu epidemic’, which subsequently the nurses objected very strongly. It was not a ‘flu epidemic’. The problem lies in the fact that there are not enough beds in our major public hospitals in the Northern Territory.
At Royal Darwin Hospital some years ago the then government closed down wards 5A and 3B. Ward 5A was closed down because Cowdy Ward, the psychiatric unit, was built in the grounds of Royal Darwin Hospital. So the original psychiatric unit, which was on 5A, was quite reasonably closed down. Patients were moved to the new area. The old area of 5A was turned into offices for staff. After that, Ward 3B was closed down. Another 36 beds were closed because the private hospital, something the CLP government facilitated, opened in the grounds of the Royal Darwin Hospital and, quite reasonably, 3B was closed and once again converted to offices.
More recently, at Alice Springs Hospital, there was the development, an initiative of the CLP, of a private ward at Alice Springs Hospital. That did not get legs under the Labor government and has since been converted to offices. So we have problems with lack of beds. For example, surgical cases at the moment are being treated on the midwifery floor at Royal Darwin Hospital, and I can assure members that that goes down like a lead balloon with midwives. There is very little action occurring with the hospice. People in this community are looking for it. Nothing yet. Finally, another problem with regards to hospital beds at Royal Darwin Hospital is that early last year, in fact it was Christmas 2002, the government closed down the rehabilitation unit at Royal Darwin Hospital, which shut eight beds and moved those patients into the medical ward at Royal Darwin Hospital, once again filling up beds which used to be open to more general clients. We have a problem in the Northern Territory at the moment with the provision of hospital beds.
Another problem that we have, which is not addressed in the statement, is the issue that is happening right now with the lack of specialist staff, for example, anaesthetists. Recently, in Alice Springs, it has been reported to me that the hospital was in dire straits with regards to obtaining an anaesthetist, so much so that they had to go to a recruiting agency in Queensland, which has sent over an anaesthetist to provide a service for 60 days. The cost of all that, over the 60 days, is in the vicinity of $120 000. That would obviously include accommodation and air fares, but, all up, about $120 000 for 60 days work. That sort of money, if doubled, would pay for one year of a full-time salaried anaesthetist at Alice Springs Hospital. The going rate for an anaesthetist at Royal Darwin Hospital is $220 000 a year. Alice Springs Hospital to date has refused to pay that sort of money. Why on earth would somebody who is an anaesthetist work at Alice Springs Hospital for less than the going rate? I have no idea. The end result has been that a number of anaesthetists over the years have made enquiries to work at Alice Springs Hospital and have had no joy. The end result is this emergency activity of recruiting for a short time period at a massive cost, in the vicinity of $2000 a day, an anaesthetist from interstate - a stop gap measure.
Another issue with staff not addressed adequately in this statement is, the Labor Party promise of an extra 75 nurses to the Northern Territory during their term. I have been monitoring this situation since Labor came to government, and the result has been disappointing to say the least. Nurses would have believed that that election promise meant that extra nurses were going to go into the day-to-day work force area, not squirreled off into some sort of project area on the first floor of Royal Darwin Hospital, pop them in to add up numbers into education, which is important. However, they would have expected those extra staff would have been going into the wards of our hospitals so that the workload for practising nurses at the time of the election would have been reduced. That was a reasonable assumption to make from that election promise. To date, there has been very little sign of extra nurses.
When I have pursued this issue, I have been told, ‘Well, we do not actually create position numbers …’, that someone like me could actually count in an organisation, ‘… what we do is we allocate the funds into the budget to pay for the salaries’. What that means to me is that nurses are being expected to work double time, overtime, things like that, these are the salaries paying for it, I believe creating a work force that may be practising in a dangerous manner, instead of saying, on each ward, here are two extra positions, you can see them, you can count them. The new minister for community services recently announced the addition of two extra Aboriginal mental health workers, and that is a good thing. She is able to point to those extra staff, she is able to point to those position numbers. Where are 75 extra nursing position numbers in the Northern Territory? By now we should be seeing at least 60 and we do not seem to have it.
The minister in his statement talks about the recruitment and retention of specialist staff such as nurses. I believe what we should be doing here in the Territory is putting an extra effort into growing our own nurses; really putting an effort into getting our Territorians to enrol at the Darwin university and to do their nurse education here, and then putting them through the practical programs at our Territory hospitals. There is a problem now in that those students at our universities are having trouble gaining practical places in the hospitals. We need to do more than what is happening now to ensure that we retain those nurses as Territorians and keep them here in the Territory.
Another disappointment over the last year or so has been the deterioration of the dental services. It was reported recently in the paper that the government is making a move now to centralise our dental services, particularly with regards to the school-based dental programs. One of my local primary schools, Larrakeyah Primary School, is particularly disappointed with this. That is Larrakeyah Primary, spitting distance from just about any central service you can imagine here in Darwin. Goodness knows what parents and families of the slightly more remote schools - perhaps the schools in Humpty Doo and Berry Springs - might be thinking. The reality is going to be that the government is not prepared to pay the money needed to upgrade the physical surroundings and the accommodation for the dentists and the dental therapists at the schools. Rather than spend that money on the infrastructure, they are going to cut back on the services in the schools. The onus will be on families to be able to logistically get their kids to a dental service when, of course, the reality was that for many children, the much easier thing to do would have been to see a dentist or a dental therapist at their school. This is a disappointing reduction in services.
Another area that has seen a reduction in health services in the last 12 months is the area of community health services, particularly urban community health services. Of course I am rather biased because I am not happy at all with the fact that the Mitchell Street clinic has been closed. This was a set up by the Labor government. What was done in order to cut costs was that, over a period of time, the clinic was ordered to reduce its services. Therefore, instead of having a primary health clinic and a baby clinic run four days a week, it was reduced to two days a week. The end result, of course, was a reduction in clients because the clinics were not open. Therefore, with that wonderful knowledge, the then minister said, ‘There has been a 7% fall in client usage’. Surprise surprise! I would have thought it would have been more. ‘Let us close it up and send people away’. That has gone down like a lead balloon in this area, that’s for sure, with people with health problems, and people in need of primary health care services. Before, problems were nipped in the bud before they ended up in our hospitals and emergency services. Primary health care services in the urban setting have been reduced - disappointing.
I do not know what is going on with the Darwin urban community health centres in particular, but I have had a number of complaints from people who are finding it harder and harder to gain the assistance of community health services, particularly the nursing staff. My concern is that the staffing situation is not adequate in those areas. For example, people with disabilities are finding it harder to get a community health care nurse to provide service; and the hospital is having trouble discharging patients on Thursdays and Fridays because of the difficulty of being able to slot them into being cared for and assisted by community health care services on the weekends. This is a problem that needs looking at. My concern is that the current service is not coping with the demand.
They are some comments with regards to the Minister for Health’s statement.
I will now make some comments with regards to the Minister for Family and Community Services’ statement. I congratulate the new minister on this statement. In comparison to the previous one, I believe it has more substance to it. There are more hooks you can hang a hat on, more things you can see, and I suspect the minister may have had some real input into this statement.
It is good to see in the statement a continued emphasis on child protection and working with, rather than against, families. We have had some situations during last year where child protection services have been in the forefront of our minds, with activities in the media and discussions that we have been having. There has been concern, for example, about the high incidence of sexually transmitted infections amongst some children and the concern as to what is happening with those children that they should actually be presenting. - these are children as young as you can get, that they should be presenting with sexually transmitted infections. It became quite apparent that the child protection area has not been coping with the workload that they have had and it is good that the government has injected significant funds into that area. It is a little bit disappointing that if you look at the funding that is going into child protection that it is a fairly small amount of money to begin with, but it is certainly a start. I will be watching with interest to see how things go there and I wish the department well in their efforts to improve child protection services.
One of the areas that I know they are going to be looking at, and the minister picks it up in her statement as well, is the area of foster care. This is an area of particular concern in the Northern Territory. It is very difficult to find foster care parents. It is obviously not something that many people in this day and age put their hands up for as many people in families have both parents working and have enough stress as it is, I would suspect, coping with their own children. To put your hand up to be a foster parent is something that we should all be applauding. It can be very difficult for them because the children they have to care for are often children who have some very special needs and can be quite demanding. This is a valuable area the department is working in and it is obviously an area that needs a great deal of support from us as a community.
I also note with interest the minister for community services comments on providing extra services to people with a disability. This is an area of growing concern in the Northern Territory as we have an increase in incidents of people with disabilities because we are ageing as a community. Many people with disabilities and their loved ones and carers struggle especially with the arguably low level of services provided. The more you move away from the central city areas the more difficult it is for people with a disability and their carers to access services and support. For quite some time it has also been very difficult to train, recruit and retain carers. I am sure agencies such as Somerville and Carpentaria Disability Services would echo these sentiments. These agencies put a great deal of work into training, recruiting and trying to retain carers for their clients, but it is a continuing struggle for them as the carers, I believe, are not adequately paid by the system. It is a very demanding job for people to be doing in many circumstances.
I am sure for many carers it can be very pleasant work as well, but for many carers it is a very difficult area to work in and Australia as a whole needs to look very carefully at how we are going to work and what sort of resources we are going to provide people who are prepared to work in the area of disability services, and to provide the care that people with a disability need, in particular, to help them to remain active and visible in our community.
On that particular issue as well, in the Northern Territory one of the issues carers raise with me is their difficulty in accessing respite for their families. For example, if you have a family where one member is dependent and requires care, whoever is providing that care really has to struggle from time to time, and one of the things they desperately need is an opportunity to have some respite. For example, agencies such as the Uniting Church – what is their organisation?
A member: Anglicare.
Ms Carter: No, not Anglicare.
A member: St Mary’s.
Ms CARTER: No. Anyway, the Uniting Church, through their programs, runs a respite house in the electorate of Fannie Bay. That is a very good service, and my congratulations to them for it. These are the sort of things that we need to be combining so that our carers can remain invigorated and can remain providing services to Australians in need. I look forward to positive outcomes from this framework in the area of the provision of disability services.
I was hoping that the minister for community services would use her first ministerial statement to put some real meat on the bones of the substance abuse issue in the Territory. As members are aware, the minister was the Chair of the substance abuse committee. I am a member of that committee and we have travelled around the Northern Territory looking at problems and investigating situations over the last two years or so. We had an interim report delivered by the minister many months ago and it is now gathering dust on the Notice Paper. It is disappointing that we have not been able to debate that issue fully at the interim report stage. It is now disappointing to know that another committee has been formed, which, to a degree I believe, is superseding the original committee. There has not been much action come out of the substance abuse committee. I am hoping that the minister in her new role will be working to assist that committee of which she was once the Chair, and encourage it to get some finalised recommendations out so that we can see some real action in this area. Substance abuse, as we all know, is an area of major concern for Territorians regardless of where you live or what your perspective on the issue may be.
Obviously, for people who are suffering at a personal level from substance abuse, because they are using substances, and their families and friends, it is a major problem, creating issues for them, their children, their parents and, of course, it is also an issue for those of us who live in the vicinity of those people and the impact they have on our social environment. Whichever committee it might be, let’s get things wrapped up and start coming out with some recommendations and some action so that the government can take steps in this important area. I know, for example, the area of Alcohol and Other Drugs in the department is floundering to a degree, looking for some direction. There have been big disappointments since the days of the Living with Alcohol program, which was going so well. We need to get going with some sort of strategy with regard to substance abuse in the Territory.
I was also disappointed because in this statement there was very little comment with regard to mental health services. Mental health services in the Territory often tie in with substance abuse, but even if they don’t, Mental Health Services is an area of increasing need. For example, in Darwin, we have Cowdy Ward, which sits in the grounds of Royal Darwin Hospital. This ward is meant to be an 18-bed ward and it has been reported to me on a number of occasions that it was significantly overcrowded from time to time. I took the opportunity to have a tour of the ward and I spoke to the staff. It became quite apparent that it is not uncommon to have mattresses on the floor in Cowdy Ward. It is not uncommon for clients to have to share a room, and here I must take issue. There was a newspaper article during the year that implied that patients do not mind that, but in fact I was told on the tour that the patients do not like to share a room. I am sure you can imagine what it could be like when both of you have mental health problems.
We have a major problem at Cowdy Ward with overcrowding. About a month ago I spoke to a nurse who is involved in that area and his comment was that the workload pressure is horrendous - horrendous pressure from the work on Cowdy Ward. We need to do things to increase our inpatient capacity for mental health services, especially at the Cowdy Ward.
Another issue that came up over the last few weeks in Darwin was the sad story of a woman from Palmerston whose daughter probably has schizophrenia, but it has not been diagnosed. Her daughter is aggressive and violent. She cannot live in the home because of the aggression and the violence she perpetrates on her parents and younger siblings. The end result, because nobody can cope with her, is that from time to time she ends up on the streets. When I investigated this and was talking to Mum, it transpires that there is no residential facility for young people in the Northern Territory with mental health problems. Cowdy Ward is reluctant to take a person under the age of 18 years because, quite obviously, they do not have a very nice environment, and there is nothing else. So, we have a young girl who refuses treatment because she is mentally ill, we have parents despairing as to what to do with her, we have a department where the offhand advice one day at the Tamarind Centre was, ‘You should take her to Queensland, they have facilities there’, - which Mum did, but because it was such a short term moment, they had to come back to Darwin. The end result is a young girl of 15 who is struggling to be cared for in our urban setting.
The minister for Health has spoken about accountability in his statement, and, quite frankly, I wish Territorians luck on the issue of accountability in health services. Last year, we had the estimates process - disappointing, a limited period of time for me to be able to ask questions. We sought information from the department under FOI on the estimates information. I received a great pile of information at the cost of $2000 to the Leader of the Opposition’s office. In this FOI stuff - 500 pages, 200 were denied to us; page after page, which I seek leave to table.
Leave granted.
Ms CARTER: Page after page of information blacked out. This is renal services. What on earth could be a secret about renal services? We have major problems with accountability here, we do not get much time to explore issues in estimates, and when we go to FOI we get blank pages. I will close with a comment from our health minister, the day that he was appointed health minister, his quote was, ‘I suppose it is the first time in my life I have ever had a health problem’, and I think he has.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss how I, as Minister for Family and Community Services, will contribute to this government’s commitment to Building Healthier Communities in the Territory. Before I begin, I put on record my appreciation of those who work to support families and communities, both within my department and in non-government organisations. Providing family and community services is not always easy. It can be a harrowing as well as rewarding experience. It is an area where there are no simple answers and no simple solutions. It takes a particular calibre of person to tackle this on a daily basis and, sad to say, I feel that, all too often, their work goes unrecognised. Today, I would like to record my respect for those workers across the Territory, who provide services for children, family and communities.
This government is committed to making a difference to families and communities in the Territory. As part of this commitment, soon after coming to office we comprehensively reviewed the Department of Health and Community Services. Subsequently, we have spent a lot of time and effort on reforming the system, on making sure that the basics of administration and financial management within the department are right. We have injected $100m extra into a system that has been affected by years of under-funding. We have the system on to a firm footing. It is now time to build on this foundation.
My colleague, the Minister for Health, has outlined the major and important components of the government’s vision for the Territory. I stand now to outline another important component of that vision: this government’s commitment to the wellbeing of families and communities within a confident, growing and diverse Territory.
Before I outline what we will be doing in each of these important areas, I will first describe our general philosophical approach to meeting these challenges. Our focus will be on the family and how its links and networks can be strengthened and supported. It is from strong and well-functioning families that individuals draw much of their strength when faced with troubling times, and from where they learn the lessons of resilience and caring. I know from my own experience how true this is. In the early 1980s, I was a single working mother of three young children and I would not have got through that time without the support of my mother and other family members. The grandparents of my children were the cornerstone upon which our family was built.
The basis of this government’s emphasis on family is practical. We know that families form the building block, the cornerstone as I said before, of many Territorians’ lives. Because of this, strong, well-functioning, well-supported families are vital for the good health of Territorians. We also know - and I like so many Aboriginal people can testify to this from personal experience - how destructive the disruption of family life can be. In particular, we should remember the legacy of the removal of children from their families which continues to affect large numbers of our citizens today. Many people have grown up without mothers and fathers and kin around them, and they have had to construct or reconstruct their own networks. It is little wonder that some have difficulty being mothers and fathers themselves.
It is stating the obvious to say that we are all born into a family, and it is also obvious that there is no one model of the family. This is especially true of the Northern Territory. The geographic, cultural, economic and social influences that shape people’s family life and childhood are different. One in five Territorians was born overseas and about three out of every 10 are Aboriginal, making the Northern Territory a very culturally diverse community. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2001 the Territory had over 21 200 couple families with children, 13 500 couple families without children, 7680 one-parent families, and more than 780 other families. All up, there are more than 43 000 families in the Northern Territory, and the wellbeing of these families touches every Territorian.
The economic circumstances of Territory families also vary considerably. About one in five families survive on an income of less than $500 a week. Almost half of the single parent families in the Territory live on less than $500 a week and, of these, almost 60% are Aboriginal families. Less than 15% of lone parent Territory families receive a weekly income of greater than $1000 compared to 50% of couple families. Clearly, the circumstances of some families are difficult and challenging. So we know that some families need assistance.
Unemployment, poverty, lack of education, poor health - Territorian families that carry these burdens are likely to have fewer tools to get them out of hardship. The problem is exacerbated if the family is isolated or excluded from society, or feels marginalised and is burdened with situational pressures such as alcohol or other substance abuse. These are conditions that might seem manageable to others but which may trigger a cascade of events leading to tragic consequences. This government faces the challenge of responding to the disadvantage that families face.
Much has been said in recent years of the problem of welfarism. This critique has pointed to a real problem of how modern states have sometimes sought to assist those in need - problems that, in my view, stem largely from treating people as passive recipients of government or private health. The problems of so-called welfare dependence have led some to calls for assistance to those in need to be cut back. The theory is that, somehow if we take away the safety net, people will no longer fall from the tightrope they sometimes have to walk.
We will work with Territory families. We will never rip away the safety net. What is absolutely clear is that families that have endured long-standing hardship will need support. We are not closing our eyes to the difficulties. We recognise that welfare dependence has caused problems in the past, but the answer is not to withdraw assistance from those in the Territory who need it. Instead, we will provide the services that support and protect people in a way that encourages strength and independence. We will support families and communities, but also encourage them to be active participants in solving the problems they face.
In this, I stand with those in the community who have insisted on honesty and courage. We have to start telling it like it is. We need to confront the truth and then we need to move on. It is time for leaders from all the communities that constitute our Territory - and I am not just talking about Aboriginal communities here - to confront the impact of alcohol, substance abuse and violence on Territory families and children. These are important points for us to remember as we turn our minds to the future and how we tackle the issues. This government understands that it has a critical role in the lives of families that live in this reality. We will work to confront the problems of grog and substance abuse and violence. We will work to support families and children. We will work with those with mental health problems and disabilities and with their carers. We will work with community leaders to build safe communities for Territory families. It is the intention of Building Healthier Communities to work with families to address the conditions that have contributed to their crisis and to support the families’ own efforts at economic and social participation. It combines government and family investments, seeks to draw families into education, training, parenting, caring and community activities as well as promoting key components of individual or community self help.
We cannot ask families to take on their responsibilities if we are not prepared to take on ours as a provider of services. Thus Building Healthier Communities also emphasises the importance of ensuring that government-provided family and community services are sensitive and attuned to the complex conditions of family and individual life in our society. This plan has been carefully thought through. We have looked at the evidence, we have confronted the challenges, we have made informed judgments about where the priorities for action lie. These are the deeds of a government concerned about doing better and being more accountable.
Madam Speaker, let me turn to some of the key elements of Building Healthier Communities that relate to my portfolio. This commitment contains a number of key areas for action. First, I want to see a Territory that gives kids a good start in life. What happens in those first years of life, including the time when women are pregnant, is crucial for creating the platform for our health and wellbeing for years to come. There has been a substantial amount of work conducted over the past two decades that has helped us understand the importance of the early years, and this government has heard those messages. My colleague, minister Toyne, has outlined a number of measures that will make lasting contributions to the health and wellbeing of Territory children including good antenatal care and the standardised management of childhood illnesses. But our vision does not stop there.
I am sure honourable members will agree that the protection of children is one of the most important issues to face the Territory community. This is a shared responsibility involving parents, wider family networks, communities, and a range of government and non-government services including schools, charities and police. Our government’s family and children services program is a matter of high priority. I know it was a first order priority for my predecessor and I acknowledge her commitment. The member for Nightcliff was minister when the new Assistant Secretary for Community Services, Ms Carol Peltola, was recruited, and I am advised, immediately spent time with Ms Peltola to stress that reform begin immediately to improve the balance, framework and performance of our services. The previous minister, it should be noted in the record, went to her Cabinet colleagues pointing out the urgent need for extra funds in the FACS program and won their support for an extra $53m over five years.
I would add to this that Ms Peltola is a very high calibre appointment. She has worked in three jurisdictions in senior roles, most recently as the key advisor for the Gordon Inquiry into child protection matters affecting the Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. With the previous minister’s support, Ms Peltola established a reference group to steer progressive reform of the FACS program and engaged national leaders from the field to workshop with that group.
By last December, when the government announced the injection of new funds, it was also in a position to announce a new guiding framework forecasting fundamental reform. As the new minister responsible for this process, and the redrafting of the Community Welfare Act, I have gone over this record in some detail. I want to stress to the Assembly that I do not want to see the pace slacken. I am emphatic that we do not need a long pause to reconsider these reforms which are based on evidence and the reviews done in at least four other states and territories, specifically Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. We should not wait while yet another report is added to the library of reports in this area.
However, I am sympathetic with the argument that on such an important issue, the process can gain from an independent voice of scrutiny and counsel with direct access to the minister. This is not because of the lack of leadership of senior officials or the reference group, but because this is such an important issue on which I want to be assured that I am in receipt of all relevant input.
For this reason, I will announce shortly the appointment of an independent chairperson for the reference group overseeing the reform for Family and Children’s Services. In announcing this decision, I am also stressing my support for the excellent work already being done under high quality leadership we are fortunate to have.
This government’s child protection reform agenda announced in December focusses on responding to the individual needs of children and family. A crucial part of this commitment is increasing resources to intervene when families are in crisis, but this will not be our only response. We will move the focus of the system to ensure that families who need support are assisted before the crisis occurs. There will be more Child Protection and Family Support workers, more funding to community agencies and a review of the situation of all children in foster care.
Before the end of the life of this parliament, I will also be introducing a bill for a new Community Welfare Act. I will be talking to communities across the Territory about their views, and the bill will reflect our shared learning over the last 20 years about the best ways to support families, protect and care for children, and develop the solid social foundation for the Northern Territory. This bill will place the protection of children within the framework of supporting families and providing the best possible start in life. Our underlying philosophy will continue to be that what we do now for children - delivering better health services, supporting families and working to overcome disadvantage - will have positive effects not just now but for many years to come.
I also want to see in the Territory in which the links of family, kin and community are strengthened so that people can realise their hopes and aspirations and tackle any difficulties they face. As I described earlier, we will provide assistance to families and communities in a way that promotes their strength and independence. There are a number of specific commitments that Building Healthier Communities makes. For example, this government will introduce family group conferencing in order to promote a timely and less adversarial resolution of child safety and care issues. Family group conferences will balance the welfare and justice issues involved in child protection interventions, recognise the cultural diversity of Territory families, and promote the active participation of families in a way not immediately available through existing, more adversarial mechanisms. We believe that family group conferencing properly implemented will build community skills in conflict resolution and decision making. The government is mindful that in building this initiative, we need to respect different cultures but not at the cost of a child’s best interest.
Foster carers provide an alternative family for children who, for one reason or another, have had to be removed from the care of their own families, sometimes for short periods, sometimes for longer. This is traumatic and difficult for all involved. Foster carers themselves cope with much of this and deserve our gratitude and recognition. They take on an enormous responsibility. They are charged with looking after the child, not just in terms of their housing, clothing and nutritional needs, but also their social and emotional development.
This government has already increased the foster care subsidy and funded the Foster Carers Association, but we intend to do more. Planning for the child’s development, their emotional and physical health may require some special and consistent support. The government believes that we can do much more to support carers in this task and we can do more to reduce the disruptions to the child’s development that placement in care might threaten. The government will establish a Looking After Children initiative that will improve the planning of programs for the management of children in care so that these children’s aspirations, needs and wellbeing can be more systematically met.
The government is also establishing a series of initiatives that will help parents. A Territory-wide Parenting Strategy is being developed that will provide a range of resources, education and support, including a Parenting Helpline and Internet site to provide immediate support to parents at those time when they believe they need help. The Parenting Strategy will include efforts that seek to build outcomes from both parents and children. We will look to early intervention, particularly for young families with children who may be exhibiting aggressive and disruptive behaviour because this, we believe, will help the children and the family, and help prevent antisocial behaviours in later life. Good parental education has been shown to build lasting improvements in the behaviour in pre-adolescent children who have behavioural problems. These are examples of the kind of initiatives that we use to help strengthen families and support children.
The third area of action I will outline is that of ensuring that our health and community services system is focussed on meeting the contemporary needs of Territorians. This means meeting emerging needs and, most importantly, putting time and energy and resources into areas which have been neglected for many years. At the top of my list are mental health services and services for those people living with a disability. We inherited a situation where the Northern Territory was the lowest per capita funder of mental health services in the country. This government has already injected an additional $12.7m over three years into mental health services. These funds will strengthen significantly the clinical mental health services and non-government based support services across the Territory. We will employ a principal psychiatrist to advance clinical and service reforms and enhancement across the Territory.
The high need identified in many Aboriginal communities will be confronted through the employment of senior Aboriginal mental health workers to work with communities to find the best ways of helping people with mental health problems. The long-standing need for mental health sub-acute care options in the Territory will also be addressed. By creating step-down and step-up services, we will reduce the length of time that people need to stay in hospital, and these services will also help people with high needs when they first leave hospital.
Complementing these changes will be the expansion of client and carer support services. These enhancements will strengthen community-based care. Together, this package of services will further advance the integration of mental health and related services across the Territory, improving the quality and scope of services to clients. Many people with mental health problems also have substance misuse and other general health problems.
Dr TOYNE: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A specialist nurse in Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital and a general practitioner clinic at the community mental health centre in Darwin will begin to address these needs. A working party is also making recommendations about better ways to support people with dual problems of substance misuse and mental illness.
People living with a disability are part of the Territory community. In particular, it is my strong belief that children with a disability are children first. The habit of seeing the disability and not the child must be changed. We know that helping children and parents when they first experience difficulties makes a long lasting impact. We will move to focus on early intervention services so that children with learning and developmental difficulties receive help early. The government will be refocussing service development and delivery, and establishing new initiatives to support Territorians living with a disability, based on serving first those most in need.
Historically, available resources have been directed to particular individuals in need without, however, looking at the whole range of needs across the community. We shall move to bring a greater degree of equity into programs in my portfolio. We will continue, of course, to maintain, as a first principle, the design and delivery of services being attuned to the needs of the individual. This government is committed to the principle that everyone within this community should have access to government and community sector services. This includes people living with a disability. Mainstream services have improved in the past decade in ensuring that these services are accessible to people with a disability, but we intend to go further. Under Building Healthier Communities, programs and policies will be reviewed to ensure that the need and aspirations of people living with a disability are properly and explicitly considered.
Madam Speaker, we all know that substance abuse, the harmful use of alcohol and other drugs, some of them legal, some not, harms our community. High levels of substance abuse holds us back from making progress in many areas, and this government is committed to tackling the problem. Prior to my ministerial appointment I was engaged in the committee work looking at substance misuse in the Northern Territory. I, as do many Territorian families, know of the pain that substance abuse can cause. My colleague, the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, is soon to receive a report on this matter and I intend to work closely with him through its recommendations.
Building Healthier Communities recognises the harmful role that substance misuse plays in the lives of some families and commits us to action. I believe that it is critical to engage the community in efforts to reduce the harm caused by substance abuse and I will be looking to engage Territorians in this work. This government will bring together the people who can advise and make a real impact. We will listen to the experts and to the community as we respond now to the key reports we are receiving. This government has enhanced existing service agencies and supported communities to deal with alcohol and drug problems. We know that the range of agencies do not always put on a united front against substance misuse. Tackling substance abuse is a difficult and challenging area, like many of the responsibilities in my portfolio.
However, I believe we can make a difference in this area and Building Healthier Communities outlines a number of key priorities. Grog, drugs, petrol sniffing, chroming, drinking and smoking robs Territorians of family members, capacity and resources. Again, we recognise that individuals, families and communities must play their part. The government will widen the range of petrol, drug and alcohol detoxification and treatment options and facilities available to Territorians.
I am also pleased that Building Healthier Communities includes a commitment to deal with the complex issue of dual diagnosis; that is, when a client presents with both substance abuse and mental health problems. Earlier this month, staff in Alice Springs raised this very issue with me, seeking government action to resolve these issues so that people in serious need can receive the best service. My department has, along with colleagues in other agencies and in the community sector, tackled the significant needs of people who live an itinerant lifestyle. Many have drug and alcohol problems, and we have enhanced our capacity to help them become sober and provide them with accommodation while they do so.
It is clear to me from my years of involvement in the community services sector, that a situation in which agencies work together always produces a better result than where they work alone, or even in competition. This is a theme that features prominently in Building Healthier Communities. The framework outlines how we will build healthier and stronger communities by working with all areas of government and with the community and its organisations. It focusses attention on the need to engage the community, experts, consumers, service providers and other key stakeholders, such as other Northern Territory government agencies and the Commonwealth government, in strategies to build healthier communities. This is a shared responsibility. Government is serious about doing its job. In working out how we will work together, my colleague and I have been mindful of what the evidence is telling us: the nature and character of the Territory, and the need to deliver on core services and priorities. I invite the community to continue in partnership with us to tackle disadvantaged.
To facilitate this, I will establish two new advisory councils - a Disability Advisory Council and a Family and Community Services Advisory Council - with membership drawn from across the Territory, the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities, carers and clients. This offers an opportunity for community members and those with specialist expertise and experience to advise me on ways of improving services for doing better.
Despite the positive and real improvements in funding and programs we have already set in motion, we do not intend to rest on our laurels. I have outlined the various pressures that fall on Territory families and indicated how Building Healthier Communities will help to ease those pressures.
This government will hold the line on matters of responsibility. Families and communities need to act responsibly. Territorians cannot walk away from the challenge of building a better life for themselves and their families. People who act violently in families and communities, who abuse our children, who sit passively while waiting for government to fix it all, and leaders who refuse to lead, to speak or hear the truth, will not like Building Healthier Communities. The strategy we have outlined today stands squarely as a challenge to communities and to community leaders. Families, communities and community leaders must accept that they need to stand up and be counted.
Some communities and community leaders are taking up the challenge. Some community leaders have brought out into public gaze the issues of domestic violence, child sexual assault and the scourge of grog and drugs. I cannot see how we can talk about building healthier communities if we do not confront the truth. But sometimes it is our own actions that are the cause of the suffering. Leadership is required and we should demand it of people who hold these roles. I will play my part as minister, but families, communities and community leaders must play their part if we are to succeed.
I have outlined how the government will help and I have indicated where we will hold the line. Building Healthier Communities lays down the challenge and the foundation for sustained improvement over the next five years. This Labor government is distinguished by its ability to understand the social fabric of our society. Our government recognises when others do not that we need to position our decisions so that they fall fairly, helping where we need and holding the line where we have to.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I trust that the Assembly will support the statement by my colleague, the Minister for Health.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I see that the second speaker, the minister for community services has rectified the problem. That is that if she said, ‘I move that the Assembly take note of the statement’, she would be in a bit of trouble because there would be two motions on the table at the same time. There is a convention of course that what is distributed is what is read, but we will leave that aside. What a mess.
We are here looking at two new ministers who have now decided that they have identified all the problems in health in the Northern Territory and with the words of the Labor government that echoes resoundingly in our ears from time to time, ‘We will. I have identified it and we will fix’. In the classic words of the minister for community services, to paraphrase her, ‘We have looked at the issues, we have confronted the challenges, we have seen where the actions lie and we have taken action. We have sacked the member for Nightcliff’. I am glad the member for Nightcliff is in this Chamber this evening because at least she handled the portfolio on her own. At least she could come into this Assembly and bring forward a statement that the opposition could respond in a coherent way.
Now, can anyone imagine a person out there reading the Hansard in that the opposition, which is not equipped with the resources of government, is given two statements. One statement is read. The shadow minister who covers right across all portfolios has to respond to two statements. The shadow minister has to respond to a statement that has not even been read in the Chamber. So anyone who is reading the Hansard transcript of this debate so far will be saying, ‘What is she responding to? What are the issues she is picking up on?’, because I cannot see the transcript where anything has been said’. It is just stupidity.
The other convention that is not adhered to all that well is that it is a debate. So if the Minister for Health makes a number of statements and the shadow minister for Health makes a number of statements, responding to his statement and picking up on others, the next speaker for the government should respond in some way to that. No, what we have is a normal approach of Labor where we pick up the transcript, read it out, no reference whatsoever to what my colleague, the member for Port Darwin raised, certainly from the minister for community services. So far, it has not been much of a debate.
However, we have identified one or two things, and that is that the Minister for Health is excited. He is excited and humbled by his portfolio. Now, paraphrase that with his words when he got the portfolio: which were: ‘I feel sick. I don’t feel excited at all. In fact, this is the first time in my life I have ever had a health problem. And more than that, I think I will resign. I have not talked to the Chief Minister yet, but when I get around to talking to the Chief Minister, I will tell her, but I will tell the press first. I think that within a year, I am out of here. I am out of here within a year because I reckon for the first time in my life, I have a health problem. I have enough health problems as it is without taking on this portfolio’.
Can you imagine then the garbage that we sit here and read about: ‘I am excited about my five year health plan’. Your five year health plan - you intend to see, with a bit of luck, if the polling is right, that you will be out of here within 12 months. If the polling is not right, obviously we will go into it next year, but we know where the member for Stuart’s agenda lies. He is praying and hoping that he gets out of this portfolio, gets out of this parliament as soon as he can. I am sure he will move into some high paid job in the IT sector and well done if he does.
Do not, minister, come in here and tell us about how excited you are and give us a statement that really - and this applies to both the Minister for Health and the new minister for community services - is an insult to the member for Nightcliff. I have not been all that laudatory about the member for Nightcliff in the past, but give the member some credit. The Minister for Health, the member for Stuart, never even made any reference to the member for Nightcliff and her work. Can you imagine being the previous Health Minister, almost three years in the job, taking on an onerous responsibility and driving forward and improving health in the Northern Territory and this new bunch, two of them, the new bunch, B1 and B2, come in here and guess what they have identified? They have identified that we are going to give kids a good start in life: ‘We have identified that we will strengthen families and communities, we will get serious about Aboriginal health’. Member for Nightcliff, where have you been for the last two and a half years? The new team is now going to get serious about Aboriginal health. Let us not talk about all those health ministers in the past because they come and go. More important than health ministers are the public servants who have worked diligently on improving the health profile of the Northern Territory over many years. What do you reckon they feel about the fact that the new team who have such enlightenment have come in here and they are going to get serious about Aboriginal health? This, after going on for three years of a Labor government: ‘We are also going to fill gaps in our health services’. It is just unadulterated garbage.
The statements from both of you, really - I can imagine the public servants - you get the call from the fifth floor that says: ‘Two statements. Knock them out quick’ and they say: ‘God, go to the computer. Rehash, dump all the old statements, put in a few words like “I” and “I am serious about health”, and “I am the new team on the street”’. You read through it and, really, there is nothing. Certainly, in the Minister for Health’s statement, there is nothing apart from: ‘I am humble. I approach this new job with a deal of humility but also with a sense of purpose and excitement’. Hmm. It does not sit too well with the five year framework that he is very excited about.
A classic in here is with regards to specialists and the new system that we now have put in place, if anyone can understand it, in our hospitals is that suddenly, everyone is watching out for the entire hospital network, not just their own patch. Now, is that a directive from the minister? Is that some new insight that we have from the Labor government? All of a sudden, with the new Minister for Health on the street, all of these public servants that are charged with managing hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, a budget that has gone through the roof, I might add, since the Labor government came out, into power, suddenly we have a whole new system in place whereas before no one was looking at the system. No one was looking across the hospitals of the Northern Territory to see if they were coordinated, to see that there were specialists being applied and relocated at the right time, that when there was a lack of doctors or anaesthetists in one area of the Northern Territory that adequate personnel were provided. No. Suddenly we have had this enlightenment with two ministers who have some wonderful insight that under their watch, everyone is now looking out for the entire hospital system.
It does not say a lot for one Dr Len Notaras. He was certainly charged with that responsibility for as far back as I can recall, including the time that I was Health Minister, so I do not know how he feels about the fact that he is being described here as being totally negligent for not being concerned about the entire health system in the Northern Territory.
The one statement that is true in these two statements is: ‘Words are cheap’. Words are really cheap when you come in and rattle off platitudes but, on interrogation, really, there is nothing of any substance in these two statements. That is the fact of it. If you want to look at areas, let us look at oral health. The minister said:
- These services have been integrated and are now run as a Territory-wide service as recommended in the Bansemer
Review. This structure will enable a redistribution of current dental resources to ensure an equitable level of oral
health service across the Territory.
What does that mean? ‘… a redistribution … to ensure an equitable level of oral health service across the Territory’. A redistribution of what? Anyone knows that the oral health services of the Northern Territory, as in many other areas, are strained to the extreme, but within that strain they have, over time, delivered a very high quality of service. What we would like to know is just exactly what you mean by, ‘… an equitable level of oral health service across the Territory’. Do you know what the level is now? The level now, in the Northern Territory, is 94%; it exceeds Australian benchmarks. One of the things that the Northern Territory can hold its head proudly across Australia, is the quality of oral health care in the Northern Territory. A quick layman’s answer to that one too, if you do not believe me, is ask any young kid in the Northern Territory to open their mouth. You will find that very few of the current generation have the dental problems that have been the problems of previous generations. One of the reasons it has been so successful is because of the screening services that we have in place in the Northern Territory, screening services that are available for every primary school in the Northern Territory, except in some remote areas, and I will get to that in a second.
Dr Toyne: Oh right, we have finally mentioned the magic word!
Mr BURKE: Well, we will talk about remote areas of the Northern Territory.
Dr Toyne: Two speakers and it is the first time it has been mentioned.
Mr BURKE: In fact, one remote area has its own hospital! Screening services that deliver this, more than anything else, they have children in the Northern Territory grow up without a fear of going to the dentist, they have children knowing, within the school environment, the school environment where they are taught, that it is a normal part of the school environment that they are in. They do not have to go to another school. They go along with their other classmates, supervised by their teachers under programs that are organised by Oral Health. What we know is happening, and I put this out in a press release and it was picked up by the paper and referred to by my colleague, is that the government is looking to change the system for a more equitable service delivery method.
The equitable service delivery methodology that you are looking at, we well know is the one that has been pinched from the ACT, which groups clientele to go from feeder schools into one central base location, and is a methodology that failed in the ACT. It had about 54% participation rate when it was introduced, and only now is getting back to 74% participation rate. That is the sort of system that the Labor government is looking at, and to try to cloud that system into some sort of new equitable method of service delivery is simply wrong. I do not get this information off the top of my head. I get it from people who work within the public service, who are very concerned about the way government is looking to change the oral health system we have in place in the Northern Territory. They talk about it, and the reason they talk about it is that they know, because they are professionals that work in the area, that the system that you are looking at could not possibly meet the expectations or levels that have been achieved in the past. We look forward to seeing what you bring forward.
I seek leave to table, for the benefit of honourable members, the information that has been provided to me, that there will be, on the government’s preferred option, the best part of 37 clinics closed in primary schools, particularly in the Darwin area, all feeding into eight base clinics. For example, for places like, in your area, Mr Deputy Speaker, schools such as Litchfield Christian, Bees Creek, St Francis, Girraween, Berry Springs, Adelaide River and Batchelor all feed into Humpty Doo Primary School as the one base clinic, where the responsibility is placed on parents who have to make sure that their kids get to the base clinic. For those parents whom the minister for community services said are not pulling their weight, guess who loses? The kid. The kid loses because the parents do not have the interest to meet those appointments, and that is why the oral practitioners are so keen on the current system being in place. The kids who are worst off, the most vulnerable kids, are the ones who miss out under this new streamlined type system. I table the government’s preferred option for the benefit of honourable members.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: If the government wants to say they will not do it, the current system will remain in place, fine! Just give us the detail but do not say you are going to put in place a new, equitable system that you will not give us any detail for.
Remote areas of the Northern Territory - Gove is a classic. The Treasurer of the Northern Territory should be aware of what is happening in Gove. There is no oral therapist in Gove. It is given over to a private practitioner. Guess how much that private practitioner is costing the Northern Territory government at the moment, Madam Speaker? You should know this, Treasurer - $66 000 every three months, minimum. You have to ask yourself this question: whenever this dentist does a service for government-funded clientele such as primary school kids and others on pension cards, all of that service is provided at government expense, all of the equipment is provided at government expense, all the material is provided at government expense. The only thing that the dentists have to pay is for the costs of their labour. Why then is it costing $66 000 every three months, minimum, for a private practitioner in Gove when the government cannot have their own therapist do the job, or cannot put in place a government practitioner? For the benefit of honourable members, I seek leave to table the information on one three-month period of costings in Gove.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: Treasurer, it is scandalous. It is scandalous and you must know. If you are not aware of the situation, if your new Minister for Health is not aware of the situation that is happening in Gove you should be. Public servants are. Public servants are scandalised that you are wasting money on these sorts of programs when there is money needed desperately right across the health system - particularly more money needed targeted properly and efficiently in our oral health services. You are wasting their money, and the public servants have to pay this out on that sort of inefficient practice that is happening in Gove.
Suddenly, everyone is watching to make sure our hospitals are doing well. I tell you who is watching. I received a letter from a constituent today, who asked not to be named publicly. I will not name him or her publicly. However, I am quite happy to tell the Minister for Health on the side if he likes. I will tell you what it says:
- Dear Mr Burke
As a resident of Brennan …
- … I am most concerned at what appears to be a lack of attention to the critical bed shortage at Royal Darwin Hospital
and the unwillingness of the current government to address the situation through the immediate release of funds when
there are at least 28 vacant beds available in the closed Corella Ward at the Private Hospital.
Yesterday, 16 February, a close family friend on a doctor’s referral presented at the A&E at around 12 o’clock with a
very painful swollen knee. She was eventually seen by a doctor at 4.15 pm and admitted at 6 pm after consultation with
the surgeon. Despite having private cover she was told she could not be admitted some 50 m away at the Private Hospital
as there was no doctor on there to monitor her condition. Instead, she joined 26 other patients in and around the
corridors of the A&E awaiting beds. As of 7.30 this morning she is still in A&E awaiting doctor’s rounds to assess
her condition.
If the current government can materialise $5m …
I think he means $21m:
- … to correct a poor policy introduction, why can’t they find money to look after fellow Territorians who are already
suffering and only having their conditions exacerbated by lack of hospital beds due to no funding? If they are keen on
jobs what about the Darwin Private Hospital staff who have had no work for three of the past four weeks while the 28 or
so bed Corella Ward is closed due to financial considerations of Health Scope management yet 50 m away A&E patients
are stacked up in corridors like livestock awaiting beds?
This is the result of a $40m extension that my government put in at RDH with one of the prime purposes of integrating those two hospitals. The Minister for Health stands up here and tells us what a great job he is doing with hospitals because, suddenly, everyone is watching out across the whole system. Everyone has seen that the system is working properly under his charge. Well, guess what? There is one resident who can tell you if you wander out there and check your waiting wards, you cannot even get admitted to the hospital or the private hospital as well – 28 patients stacked up in a brand new A&E. It is a disgrace; it is scandalous. That is the situation that we have at the moment.
Disabilities is a good one. The disability statement from the minister for community services goes on to say:
This government is committed to the principle that everyone within this community should have access to government
and community sector services. This includes people living with a disability.
Mr Henderson: Your previous minister would not even take a public meeting; would not even talk to them. He ran 100 miles from them. He would not even talk to them.
Mr BURKE: The ACOSS group is a mob that is sympathetic to your government. Absolutely.
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr BURKE: ACOSS, because they were not treated as well as they would have liked under my government, have been treated admirably under your government, so you say, would be the sort of group that you would think would be a reticent to criticise government. So, minister for community services, when you talk about the disability sector and all the things you are doing within the disability sector, read this:
- Labor when it came to office made a commitment under its healthy Territorian’s disabilities and health statement
to undertake a three year strategic plan and to within three months of the completion of this plan, produce a
definitive implementation plan with time lines. It is now two years since Labor came to office and as yet, no such
plan has been developed.
It goes on:
- It is the view of the disability sector that little progress has been made over the last three years. Minimal additional
funding has been provided.
So there is the ACOSS mob. Just imagine if they were not sympathetic to you. Just imagine if they were not friendly what they would be saying. And they cannot even hold back on an issue of disability even though they know that they are beholden to government for funding otherwise they will get the funding cut off. They are being very subdued, very subdued in what they are saying. I seek leave to table the letter too, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: Let us quickly talk about transparent, open and accountable health services.
Ms CARTER: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BURKE: This is the health system that we have in place in the Northern Territory. This is the government that introduced freedom of information legislation. This is the government that brings out glossy budget books and says: ‘Aren’t we wonderful. We are spending all this money in health. We have a new estimates process. You can interrogate the budget, you can find out everything that is going on’. Guess what? The reality is a million miles away from that. If you look at the information that has been provided over FOI – there is the index. These are line items on budget outputs that have been scrubbed out.
I will table these, Madam Speaker, as I go along. How would any opposition, which has a responsibility to act on behalf of the taxpayer to interrogate the government, possibly interrogate a budget when the information you get out of this government is what we received here? The capital works program …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Well, the member for Nhulunbuy has a chuckle.
Mr Stirling: When did you bring FOI in?
Mr BURKE: Well, what we would not do is bring in FOI, which is an absolute disgrace and that is that you cannot get - the reality is, you cannot get information out of this government. You can parrot FOI until the cows come home. At the end of the day, you have to get information. Now, if you were asked, member for Nhulunbuy or member for Wanguri, this question in the budgets estimates process under the old system, tell me, would you have a reasonable answer? Can you provide details of the capital works program for 2002-03, 2003-04? See where 2003-04 is? Blanked out, completely. A capital works program which should be the government accounting back to Territorians as to how they are spending their capital works money, blanked out. You cannot even get one iota of information on what is the real spending of the capital works program out of this government in the 2003-04 budget.
Non-admitted patient services: you come in here with your statement and tell us what a great job you are doing in Health and non-admitted patient services, explanation of variation of the 2002-03 estimate and 2003-04 budget. These are outputs of the budget. These are the reasons you account to the taxpayer. This is what you have to do. How can any opposition possibly interrogate a budget that has total line items removed? In this particular example, the missing figure is on non-admitted patient services, explanations of variations in the budget. The missing figure on that line item is $332 000 which is 10% of the budget. Zip – no information to the opposition that gives them any idea as to why or how that variation occurred.
The missing figure for the variation of the estimate of admitted patient services - this is the streamlined health system where everyone is suddenly watching out for each other - for admitted patient services, the variation in the budget has a missing figure of $6.817m. $6.817m that you cannot burrow down - even under FOI – you cannot get out of the estimates process, you cannot burrow down under FOI. You give global figures in your budget papers and when one tries to interrogate and find out what is the real figure with the way money is moving around, where is the admitted patient services systems blowing out, you cannot get any information.
Air evacuations - here is a classic. Air evacuations, a high cost item in the Northern Territory. The question is: for 2002-03, detail expenditure for air evacuations of patients from remote locations to regional hospitals for treatment. Now, that is a reasonable question that the taxpayer would want to know. Is the cost of air evacuations going up or down and why? Blank! The whole lot. Blank! For 2003-04, you are not game to tell anyone what your costs for air evacuations for remote locations is going to be.
This is FOI under the Labor government. This is the health system under the Labor government. What it consists of is this: you come in here with this sort of parroted garbage, rehashed, cut and pasted, wide ranging statements about ‘Aren’t I wonderful? I am now the Health Minister. I am now the community minister. I am excited. I am going to fix Aboriginal health. The previous minister is a dud. We are going to have new reviews, new plans, new strategies’. But when you say: ‘Where is the detail? How much is air evac costing you?’, you get a big blank. It is a scandal when it comes to just the issues that I have raised alone.
I can go on, Madam Speaker. Support for senior Territorians and pensioner concessions output - $332 000 missing from that output variation. No way of knowing why it is missing, whether it has changed up or down, whether the budget figures are correct or not.
Alcohol and other drugs: the minister for community services said she is really interested in alcohol and other drugs, that she is really going to do a lot in that area. The budget shows, for 2002-03 to 2003-04, an increase of $23 000 for Alcohol and Other Drugs output. When you find out what the real situation is, you find out that there is $294 000 of deductions that have not been explained. So you cannot find out whether or not the increase has been $23 000, or whether or not it is $23 000 over what was spent the year before, or whether there has actually been about a $270 000 decrease because of a blow-out the year before. This is scandalous.
Support for senior Territorians is same story: as I said, about $332 000 with missing figures all over the place.
This is the real story about health in the Northern Territory. We have two new ministers. You said the previous Minister for Health and Community Services is a dud, she tried hard, we are now all enlightened, excited, we are going to fix the health system. We are going to have a whole heap of reviews, we are going to have advisory committees. Well, I will give member for Nightcliff credit: she was not all that forthcoming with information …
Mr Dunham: Or smart.
Mr BURKE: No, I would not go that far. I think she is a smart lady.
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: I would not go that far. I think she is a nice lady. In fact, I am impressed, Madam Speaker. There is a woman, and I can relate to her in some ways, she is still on the front row. Member for Casuarina, you are not doing too well. I thought the front bench is the front bench. If you are a minister, you sit on the front bench, and you have not quite made it yet. You have been demoted, but you have not made it to the front bench yet. I would be a bit worried if I were you. The member for Nightcliff is sitting there poised: ‘all I have to do is keep my nose clean and I have a good chance here’. In fact, I can tell you, member for Nightcliff, we are going to give you a hand. In the space of these sittings, we are going to give you a hand. You just stay in the seat, you never know. Things could happen and it might just improve.
Madam Speaker, I will not say any more.
Dr Burns: You know all about that, don’t you?
Mr BURKE: Yes, and I can take it in my stride. I can take it in my stride. I tell you what: you will never get to the heights I ever reached. So sit with that one! Keep that one! You go up and you go down, but you will never even get up three rungs of the ladder. Go and talk to Latham. Talk about how you climb the ladder! Latham might give you a few little insights as to how to climb the ladder. The member for Casuarina knows how to go down the ladder; you have to figure out how to climb it.
Madam Speaker, I hope that the government in future will produce a statement that has some real information. If we are going to deal with two statements at one time, let us get ourselves organised so we have some substance.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that debate be adjourned.
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Dunham: Oh, you gag it because you are in trouble! What is wrong with you? Can’t you take debate? You gag it because you are in trouble!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Dunham: You are so weak! That is the most gutless thing I have ever seen. You brought it on as an issue.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, thank you! It seems as though the agreement that is occurring between the Whips is not being passed on to other members …
Mr Baldwin: That’s rubbish! Two speakers!
Madam SPEAKER: … but that was my understanding when we spoke earlier.
The question is that debate be adjourned. I think the ayes have it.
Mr Dunham: No, division!
Mr Elferink: Division, Madam Speaker.
Mr Bonson: Settle down.
Mr Dunham: Well, you are gagging debate.
Dr Burns: You are humiliating your own Whip.
Mr Dunham: You brought these on as issues and you do not want to hear.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, thank you.
Mr Dunham: Oh mate, I will humiliate you soon.
Dr Burns: You would be going to do that, old fellow.
Mr Dunham: Oh, I do not pinch people’s words, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: A division was called. Ring the bells.
Mr Dunham: You stand here as a convicted plagiarist, and you give us that shit!
Dr Burns: Oh, come on. You are full of hate. Get a life!
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Drysdale.
Mr Dunham: I am sorry I pinch people’s words. We have had sorry from the Chief Minister – oh, she’s not here!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr STIRLING: I don’t think we need that language from that grub over there. He should withdraw it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, thank you! Resume your seats. You know the rules as well as I do. You will not sit there shouting at each other or you will be sent out of the Chamber. I am getting a little bit tired of it. We have a division called. You know what it is about. Just sit there.
Mr Baldwin: Outrageous behaviour on government’s behalf. Bring on an important statement and you cannot debate it. Gagged in two important statements: the railway, the biggest project in the Northern Territory, and health, the biggest issue in the Northern Territory and we get gagged.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, enough!
Mr Baldwin: Absolute rot.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Dunham: It is supposed to be a House of debate, mate.
Mr Baldwin: Who is running the show over there? Which one of you is running it? Where is your Chief Minister?
Mr Dunham: Are you on the run, Hendo? You’re on the run, aren’t you?
Mr Henderson: Do you want your MPI or not?
Mr Dunham: No. You brought the statements on. We just want to talk about them. Oh, the Chief’s back! This will be good.
Ms Carter: The agreement was three. Three each side.
Mr Baldwin: This is an outrageous, appalling performance by a government. How many statements are we going to get …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly! Enough!
Mr Baldwin: Madam Speaker, this should be referred to Standing Orders, this whole thing. This is absolute abuse of parliament. That is what it is.
Mr Stirling: The member for Drysdale should stay away from the bar while the House is sitting.
Mr Dunham: I am happy to talk, mate. So far I have been gagged twice.
Mr Kiely: I think we ought to alcohol test you.
Mr Dunham: Pardon, Mr Kiely?
Mr Kiely: You heard me.
Mr Dunham: What? Alcohol?
Mr Kiely: I think there is no room for alcohol in this Chamber, Mr Dunham.
Mr Dunham: Really?
Dr Burns: Don’t listen to him.
Mr Dunham: You bring the statements on, and we want to talk to them, okay? It is a simple thing. You are supposed to bring them on because they are important.
Mr Kiely: Do not be a fool. You are a foolish individual. Foolish.
Mr Dunham: They are not bullshit, are they? Oh, that is interesting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, enough!
Mr Dunham: I am getting frustrated, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: I would ask that that be withdrawn, Madam Speaker. It is the second time he has used it.
Mr Baldwin: What did he say?
Mr Bonson: Bullshit. He said the word ‘bullshit’.
Dr Lim: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. Member for Drysdale, you should withdraw it.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: I just asked you to withdraw it.
Mr DUNHAM: Could I explain? I did use the word ‘bullshit’ because I assumed it was said by the member for Sanderson and I was asking if that is what he said. It is the first time I said it.
Madam SPEAKER: I have asked you to withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw it. I believe it to be unparliamentary.
Mr Baldwin: Now, member for Sanderson, you withdraw yours.
Mr Bonson: He never said anything. He did not say it. You are putting words into his mouth.
Mr Dunham: Did you say it?
Mr Kiely: No, no, no. Don’t be so ridiculous.
Mr Dunham: Who said it? Was it you, Matthew? Somebody said it.
Madam SPEAKER: I am not going to tolerate this any longer.
Dr Lim: Madam Speaker, may I…
Madam SPEAKER: Last warning for you, member for Drysdale.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdrew, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, we are in a middle of a division.
Dr Lim: I understand that. I was just trying to save some time.
Madam SPEAKER: Lock the doors. The question is that debate be adjourned.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Bonson Mr Burke
Dr Burns Ms Carney
Mr Henderson Ms Carter
Mr Kiely Mr Dunham
Ms Lawrie Mr Elferink
Mr McAdam Dr Lim
Ms Martin Mr Maley
Ms Scrymgour Mrs Miller
Mr Stirling Mr Mills
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARTER: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to clarify, the agreement with the Whips was three speakers each on this item.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I suggest that …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order! It is not my agreement. As a member of parliament, I reserve the right to speak.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me! I order the member for Drysdale to withdraw from the Chamber under Standing Order 240A …
Mr Dunham: Yes, no problem.
Madam SPEAKER: … for one hour!
Mr Dunham: There is very little opportunity to speak in this place, anyway.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, resume your seat! You do not walk out of this House speaking! I name the member for Drysdale.
Mr Dunham: I thought you ordered me out, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Do not start back-answering as you walk out. Leader of Government Business, I have named the member for Drysdale. I will not tolerate any more of this.
Mr Baldwin: Do you know what to do, Leader of Government Business?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale will absent himself for 24 hours.
Mr Dunham: 24 hours?
Madam SPEAKER: No, you need to move a motion.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Drysdale absent himself from this House for a period of 24 hours.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Those of the opinion say ‘aye’.
Mr Elferink: No! Madam Speaker, I was on my feet! I was speaking to the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: You were not acknowledged.
Mr Elferink: I was speaking to the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: You were not acknowledged. I am getting a bit fed up!
Mr Elferink: I have a right to be heard in this Chamber, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr Elferink: I have a right to be heard in this Chamber in accordance with …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell!
Mr Stirling: If you want to challenge the Speaker, you can go, too.
Mr Elferink: I am quite happy to go because I am not getting heard!
Madam SPEAKER: Okay!
Mr Elferink: I am not getting heard. Nothing is getting heard in this Chamber . This is outrageous!
Madam SPEAKER: This is outrageous and you are contributing to it. The reason I named the member for Drysdale is that when I ordered him to leave the Chamber, he turned around and gave a mouthful of lip back to me. I will do the same to you! I will not tolerate this disrespect you are showing. You can rant and rave all you like, but let us get some order back into this Chamber. I suggest the opposition realise that they are doing themselves no good by putting on these performances. You know the rules, and that is it.
Mr Dunham: We are totally gagged!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, leave the Chamber.
Mr DUNHAM: Has the vote been put, Madam Speaker? I believe the question is still before the Chair.
Mr Baldwin: Yes, it is.
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon, it is. It is a procedural motion so there is no debate.
Motion agreed to.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I am seeking guidance here from yourself and the Clerk. It appears to me, observing the behaviour in this Chamber, that the government has persistently and consistently flaunted all convention in this Chamber, where debate should be occurring after a minister comes in, two ministers, three ministers comes in with debate and …
Mr Stirling: What is he talking to?
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Dr LIM: … the opposition is not allowed …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, what is your point of order?
Dr LIM: Well, I believe there should be time put aside in this Chamber to debate this through properly, to decide how we are going to conduct business in this Chamber. At the moment, business is not being conducted in this Chamber in accordance with the sentiment that is here in parliament. It is not.
Madam SPEAKER: All right. Resume your seat.
Mr Stirling: If I can clarify things …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me! Let me say it is not the first time that statements have been adjourned in this House.
Mr Baldwin: By this government.
Madam SPEAKER: It has happened before.
Mr Baldwin: By this government.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, I do not think you should make that statement so broadly.
Dr Lim: Well, it is true.
Ms Martin: By the CLP in government, as well.
Madam SPEAKER: This House has been sitting since 1978.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): I just wanted to make the point, Madam Speaker, in relation to some of the comments the member for Greatorex was making. There are deals made between both sides of the House to facilitate …
Mr Baldwin: But you did not uphold it.
Mr STIRLING: … the sensible operation of the parliamentary Notice Paper and Business of the Day. On two occasions today, up to tonight, the deal was broken by the opposition after agreement was struck by the Whips so that the government understood how many speakers were on each issue. When you get to questions of censure, we did not invent two and two. It has been the case …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Wait until he is finished.
Mr STIRLING: It has been the case for 13 years I have been in this Chamber. I think on one or two exceptions it ever went to three and three. The deal was two and two. That was broken. A similar deal was broken by members opposite, despite the agreement with the …
Mr Baldwin: This is rubbish!
Mr STIRLING: They do not have the discipline. If they do not have the discipline to work it out among themselves and listen to their Whip and understand what the deal is, then it is on their own head.
Mr Baldwin: You are a liar!
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your Chair. Member for Daly.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the member, we had our Whip, of her own volition, stand up and say to you - with respect to you - that the deal was three on three. We have only had two speakers. The member for Brennan was our second speaker. For the member for Nhulunbuy to stand up and say that we do this all the time, is absolute rubbish. There is a problem here and it is becoming the norm that these ministerial statements that are so important to this House, that give us the chance to debate very important issues - the railway being one and health being the other – that, Madam Speaker, I will ask you to take on board to talk to both the Opposition Leader and the Chief Minister and the Whip and the Leader of Government Business to sort this issue out. It is becoming the norm from this government, and the member for Nhulunbuy has just called our Whip a liar.
Madam SPEAKER: No, he did not.
Mr Baldwin: Yes, he did.
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go any further let me just say I sit here and I am advised by the Whips what is going on. If anyone stands and adjourns a debate, that is part of the standing orders. You can do that. I suggest both sides get their act together and start getting agreement on how many speakers you are going to have. Simple as that.
Mr Baldwin: It is an absolute joke, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, if it is a joke then perhaps you need to get your act together.
Mr Baldwin: And perhaps we need to make an issue out of it.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, you are.
Mr Baldwin: That is the point. Yes, we are.
Madam SPEAKER: You are. And I just want to make a point here also to the member for Macdonnell. I will not tolerate any further the way you are speaking to me. That is your last warning.
Mr Baldwin: He stood to be heard, he has been not recognised twice.
Madam SPEAKER: You do not stand up and scream like that. Thank you..
Mr Baldwin: He has not been recognised twice.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, I am speaking. The member for Macdonnell seems to think he knows all about the procedures. When a motion like that is put, there is no debate. But you continued to scream and yell. Now let’s get some sort of commonsense back in this Chamber.
Mr Baldwin: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: No. Clerk, have we put the motion? We have. We are in division. I will announce the division. There was no division. Well, why did we lock the doors?
Mr Baldwin: We called a division.
Madam SPEAKER: We shall go on with the next - open the doors. Let the member for Nelson in. We are going on to the next item of business which is the MPI.
Mr Baldwin: Madam Speaker, just to clarify. Did we have the division because it was called. The doors were closed.
Madam SPEAKER: I was advised by the Clerk that there was not.
Mr Henderson: And then you called the numbers on the motion.
Mr Baldwin: We called a division. Division means ringing the bells.
Madam SPEAKER: I announced the result of it. I said there were 12 ayes and 10 noes.
Mr Baldwin: A division is ringing the bells and counting the numbers.
Mr Henderson: We have done that.
Madam SPEAKER: That is what we just did.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Employment and Payroll Tax
Employment and Payroll Tax
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition which I will now read. In accordance with Standing Order 94 I intend to raise today as a matter of public importance that - Noting:
- 1. more than 3000 jobs have been lost since May 2002;
- 3. while GST revenues have increased from $1.2bn in 2000-01 to more than $1.6bn, that is by $400m or one third,
Territory business is suffering under the burden of the tax on jobs, that is payroll tax; and
- 4. this government seems unable to act to ease the situation other than to commission southern consultants for another
review or discussion paper,
- it is an urgent matter of public importance that a new approach must be found and new policies implemented.
Leader of the Opposition, is the proposed discussion supported.
Mr MILLS: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, no it is not.
Mr MILLS: Yes, yes it is supported.
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is still not supported. You need five members to support it.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! I call on the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, two-and-a-half years ago this week Territorians woke up on a Sunday morning to the news that they had elected a Labor government for the first time in our history. It was as much a shock to them and the CLP as it was to the Labor Party. Labor never believed that they would win. They were not prepared to win and they were not ready to govern. Territorians have suffered ever since. We have suffered a plethora of inquiries, a rash of reviews, a crisis load of consultancies and dozens upon dozens of discussion papers as this government has desperately tried to work out some policies and frantically tried to work out how to govern.
In the past week, we have witnessed two classic examples of the way this Labor government operates. First, there was this pool fencing fiasco. It was a policy they discovered amidst all the inquiries, the inquisitions, strategic plans of their first 12 months in government, so they charged ahead and legislated. A courageous move, as the government’s wise old man, Bob Collins, described it at the weekend. Unfortunately for Bob, the government has now lost the courage, just as it has lost the votes of many Territorians for its impulsive interference with the lifestyles and the backyards of Territorians. With more I-was-wrongs and I’m-sorrys than any prime minister, premier, or chief minister has ever uttered in one announcement, the Chief Minister last Thursday ditched the policy, and the cost is some $20m of taxpayers’ money. The lesson for inexperienced Labor is: do not grab at any issue; do not rush through laws; and do not interfere with the freedoms of Territorians.
Have they learnt the lesson, Madam Speaker? It would appear not, as the Chief Minister is now planning to rush through the new version in this parliament, and she said in her media release that the new laws would be implemented in March.
The second classic example is the issue of superannuation for MLAs. This was a policy that they had before the 2001 election. The Chief Minister is on the record saying she would fix this up when she won government, but she made those comments when the idea that she would win government in 2001 had just not entered her head. It was a promise, like so many of the others the Labor Party took to the election, that never in their wildest dreams did they believe they would actually have to implement.
Having won government, the Chief Minister decided she had better pay lip service to the promise, and ordered an inquiry in May 2002. That is almost two years ago. The inquiry was conducted by the respected former Under Treasurer and was completed in September 2002, 18 months ago. Nothing more was heard about it until the Chief Minister was hit last week with both barrels from Canberra. First, her national leader said he would do something about federal MPs superannuation if he was ever elected - obviously a standard Labor promise when in opposition. Then the Prime Minister took up the challenge and said: ‘It is done. We will fix it now’. Reeling from this double barreled attack, the Chief Minister initially said on Friday morning that the government was still working on its reforms and would not be rushed; legislation would be introduced later in the year. Within a few hours on Friday, she showed her back flip on pool fencing …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr MILLS: … the day before was not the exception, but was becoming the norm. By late Friday afternoon, she had issued a media release announcing that she would be bringing her reforms to MPs superannuation to this session of the Legislative Assembly.
This is a classic example because it shows Labor promised policies they did not know how to introduce and when they found out, they procrastinated until events beyond their control forced their hand. They are but two examples of what Territorians have had to suffer under this government.
Mr Stirling: There is nothing about this in the MPI.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I could go on with a litany of complaint about the Chief Minister and her government. We could talk about the loss of jobs they have presided over - more than 3000 between May 2002 and January 2004, 3000 Territorian jobs. In fact, there are fewer Territorians with full-time jobs in January 2004 than there were when the Labor government won government in August 2001. Labor went to the election with a job plan and then discovered a new one after two years in government. Some plan! A plan that makes jobs disappear. The Treasurer admits in his mid-year report that he expects employment growth this year to be only half of what he was predicting in the budget.
We could talk about the general state of the economy, with forecast growth for this financial year downgraded by the Treasurer and Treasury to 1.6%, less than half of what he was predicting in his budgets seven months earlier. We could talk about the hurt local business is suffering, or the frightening number of vacant shops, restaurants and buildings that provide clear evidence that things are not going well.
We could talk about how tourism, one of our major industries, has been tossed from one incompetent minister to another. There have been four Labor tourism ministers so far, and remember, Labor has only been in power for two and a half years. The tactic is obvious. Any new minister can claim they are consulting and getting on top of their portfolio to gain a little time before criticism of lack of action takes hold. Then just as the industry is ready to denounce the minister’s efforts, he disappears and a new one is appointed to consult and to get on top of the portfolio. It is a slick card trick and our crucial tourism industry is the one being cheated here.
ABS figures released last week showed that in 2003 the number of overseas visitors who spent most of the time in the Territory declined by 20.6% in 2002. No industry can be expected to suffer such a downturn. This government finally recognised the dire straights which have befallen this vital industry, but they are to be condemned for not acting sooner. Such contemptuous disregard for one of the biggest employers and drivers of our economy will never happen under a CLP government. I could go on but it is just too depressing. We are stuck with this lot and all we can hope is that the damage that they do is not irreparable.
What I will speak about today is some of the things I would do: the action we would take to get the Territory moving again; the plans and the policies we will pursue to develop the Territory. Let me stress that these are only some of the initiatives that the CLP will be putting before Territorians. In coming weeks and months, we will be outlining our plans for the Territory across all areas.
We believe in a Territory that acts, not reacts to whatever is being done down south. We believe in a Territory that gets on with the job; that is innovative, exciting and constantly developing. We do not want a Territory that is a mirror image of Labor states elsewhere. We want the Territory to continue to be a special place, a different place and a freer place. It is a place that develops its own way, whether it is the tropical cities and towns of the north or the desert cities and the communities of the Centre. We have the opportunity to make the Territory an even greater place to live, and we will pursue that, guided only by the wishes of Territorians.
We will use the resources and the revenues the Territory has received to achieve this. We will use the ever growing revenue stream from the GST, and it is ever growing. In 2001-02, this Labor government received an extra $64m on what the CLP government received in 2000-01. In 2002-03, they received an extra $215m from the GST compared to what they received the previous year. This financial year they are getting an extra $118m. Since Labor took office, the GST revenue alone has soared from $1.2bn to more than $1.6bn. That is, this year this government will have $400m more than the CLP government did in 2000-01.
Madam Speaker, a CLP government will use this ever growing stream of funds, not to engage in more social engineering, more government interference in Territorians’ lifestyle, but rather ease the burden of government on Territorians. The GST revenue should not be seen as a windfall so that government can indulge in some of their own policy fantasies, their social experiments, their pet projects, or their touting for votes. It should be seen for what it is, a new tax system that was meant to replace many of the insidious taxes on jobs, business and industry, and the earnings of ordinary Territorians.
We will use the GST revenue stream to both cut the payroll tax rate and increase the threshold before it impacts on small and medium businesses. It is a tax that forces these businesses to limit their work force and screw down hard on any wage increases for their employees. No tax should be a disincentive for hiring people. No tax should be a part of the bargaining that prevents fair wages for Territorians. An employer who wishes to hire more Territorians or pay the staff more in wages should be encouraged, not threatened by a tax that increases the cost of each new job or any wage increase. Just as bracket creep is putting more people into high income tax scales, so too with the threshold for payroll tax. It must be closely monitored so that those drivers of the economy, the small and medium enterprises, are not hit by payroll tax just because of inflation.
We will change the payroll tax system and change it fundamentally. The first stage will be to make the NT payroll tax regime the most attractive nationally, and this will be achieved in the first term of a CLP government. The ultimate aim will be to abolish this tax on jobs. In 2002-03, payroll raised $88.9m, and this financial year it is expected to bring in $96m. The tax can and will be phased out as GST revenues rise. In the meantime, we will make it crystal clear in legislation just who is an employee and who is not - a definition that constantly changes and is open to different interpretations leads to that most abhorrent of taxes, retrospective taxation. It has the power to devastate companies - even to seeing them closing down and Territorians losing their jobs. We do not condone anyone indulging in rorts, of course, to avoid paying legitimately imposed taxes, nor do we condone trolling through a company’s books to collect taxes from years ago just because the latest interpretation of ‘employee’ may make them liable.
We will abolish the HIH levy. Territory companies should not have to pay for the failure, the mismanagement of some southern insurance company. If it is a burden that has to be met, then the pain should spread as wide and as possible to come out of general government revenue. We will also examine other areas of taxation, particularly those instances where Territorians have to pay a tax on a tax, such as property where the Territory imposes its stamp duty on the grossed-up value of the property which includes the GST. It is unfair that Territorians have to pay an extra 10% in stamp duty because the price of the property is deflated by the 10% GST. The stamp duty should be imposed on the real value, not the tax inflated worth.
There is a real point of difference also between the CLP and the ALP when it comes to law and order issues. Underlying the ALP’s approach to this issue is a belief that those who commit crimes should not go to gaol. The CLP does not share that belief. In fact, it rejects it.
Mr Stirling: Where is that in the MPI?
Mr MILLS: The CLP does not support what is meant by the phrase: ‘Do the crime, do the time’. I confirm today that the CLP agrees and will announce policies over the next six months to demonstrate our resolve to send offenders to gaol. Put simply, the community wants it, victims of crime expect it, and offenders deserve it.
A particular focus for a future CLP government will be the unveiling of juvenile correction models. Violent crime has increased in the Territory under Labor and its own figures confirm this. No doubt, this is one reason for people leaving the Territory in droves ...
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I missed the point earlier, and perhaps it was not so important, however, at the commencement of the matter of public importance, the Leader of the Opposition spent a considerable time on superannuation which is just simply not mentioned here. Now he is on to imprisonment rates, law and order, crime – any of those issues are simply not mentioned in the letter to you. If he has put it in writing to you, that is the material that he is expected to cover, and nothing else.
Madam SPEAKER: You should confine your remarks to your matter of public importance unless you can tie those particular subjects into what you are saying.
Mr MILLS: It will follow through. It will.
We are prepared to bet on the Territory’s future and provide a government that will do all it can to facilitate a better and brighter future for Territorians and Territory families. We will say to the Territory’s parents: ‘We believe in you. We respect your right and responsibility to bring up your children free from busybody interference from government or bureaucracy’. We will say that it is up to Territorians to decide what is politically correct, not the ideologues or the social engineers. We will put in a safety net to help parents who are not coping, who are having trouble looking after our most precious resource: our children. We will offer counselling and help to the schools from the Health and Community Services Department. In return we will expect every child to be given the chance for a full education; the chance to reach their full potential.
It is, therefore, logical to say that parents are responsible for their children’s health, welfare and education, that we pursue the ways to ensure that all parents exercise that responsibility. There are limited laws now to fine parents if their children do not attend school, but we must look beyond this to issues such as children roaming our streets at night, with no respect for others, for the law or for society. The first step is to offer help to parents to rectify this situation. The second step is to ensure that those who do not, and will not, are given some strong incentive to perform their parental duties. It must be an offer that they cannot refuse and be backed by court orders if necessary.
Governments cannot, and should not, usurp the role of parents, but rather offer as much help and support as parents need. We have to offer the back-up services, the opportunities that parents and children can use to further their development. One such example, I believe, is a cadets NT program. The aim of a cadets NT program is to promote team building, leadership, self-reliance, personal development, citizenship and volunteerism amongst young Territorians. The program will provide young Territorians with practical life skills that will assist them to progress to further education or to enter the work force. Funding should be a set access from the Commonwealth Cadets and High Schools program, with the Territory government providing start up and per capita cash subsidies.
Funding would be provided to participating schools which would operate and manage the cadet unit. Training programs would have two strands: one provided by the school, and the other by existing and accredited service providers, such as the scouts, St John Ambulance, Red Cross, Junior Police Rangers, Army, Navy, Air Force and emergency services. These providers would be responsible to cover components related to skills acquisition, leadership, community services, initiative and problem solving and team work.
More than a quarter of Territorians are Aboriginal and most live in these smaller communities. We believe that the days of ‘sit down money’ must end. The dependence on welfare has done more harm than good. People must be given back their dignity, not paid off in the hope that the problems will, if not go away, then at least be silenced. In the meantime, ways must be found to ensure that those monies are used to the benefit of all recipients. Ways can be worked out to ensure that the money given to itinerants to allow them to pay their fares back to communities is repaid. Why then cannot ways be worked out to ensure that various payments made to families and individuals are not wasted on grog or ganja or kava, but rather used to improve the health and the welfare of families and individuals?
I am committed to finding ways to achieving this so that families benefit from these payments and not suffer any further. However, that is only a temporary solution. We must give communities the opportunities to get off welfare and pursue their own economic development. It must not be in a paternalistic way that is now fashionable of telling them what to do, but rather government’s role is to assist them to do what they want to do. Ways must be found to unlock the economic potential of almost 50% of the land controlled by land trusts. Ways must be found to let the traditional owners and the residents of these lands improve their economic lot. It does not have to be factories or industry or even the cash economy. It does not have to fit with the western economic model. There were thriving micro-economies before and there can be again. Government’s role will be to help, not dictate.
Madam Speaker, I now turn to another group of very important Territorians, our public servants. Let me assure them first that I have no wish to create more turmoil within the public service by conducting a wholesale review of the structure.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order! Madam Speaker, Standing Order 94 is very clear in regards to the items that can be debated under matter of public importance. I will read that: ‘A written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed …,’ and Madam Speaker determines whether it is in the competence of the Assembly. We have nothing in the letter to you, Madam Speaker, that talks about superannuation, law and order, truant kids, parental responsibility, ‘sit down money’, the list goes on.
We are happy to debate these issues, and maybe you can refer the Leader of the Opposition to what is allowed under the provisions of this standing order. Really, the issues that he is raising here, he did not raise in the letter. They are substantive issues, they deserve debate, there is General Business day. Madam Speaker, I seek your ruling on the content of the debate of the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: I have already spoken to you, Leader of the Opposition. You need to keep to the subject of your matter of public importance.
Mr MILLS: I would like to speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr Stirling: No, no, no, it is a standing order!
Mr Baldwin: No, just listen.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member, excuse me! You are not the Speaker. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, in raising a matter of public importance, we note issues of fundamental concern to Territorians. If you will note the letter, it says it is an urgent matter of public importance so that a new approach must be found and new policies implemented. That is precisely what I am doing in response to the concerns of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please continue your remarks and confine them to your matter of public importance.
Mr MILLS: Precisely what I am doing.
Mr Baldwin: Which is policy, new policy.
Mr Stirling: I am trying to find superannuation, law and order, cadets, ‘sit down money’, welfare …
Mr MILLS: Read the letter properly!
Mr Baldwin: Read new policy, you dill!
Mr MILLS: This is a response to a problem you have created and we are defining a difference.
Mr Stirling: … instead of this rambling.
Mr Elferink: Why do you hate this Chamber so much now, Syd?. Why do you hate this Chamber so much now, eh?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Public servants - let me assure them that I have no wish to create more turmoil within the public service by conducting a wholesale review of the structure as put in place by this government, but there are areas that must change because the priorities of the CLP government are different from those of Labor. No better example is available in the way this government has downgraded Asian Relations and Trade. Fourteen years ago, my predecessor as CLP leader, Marshall Perron, created a Minister for Asian Relations and Trade with departmental back up to positively promote the Territory’s cause with our neighbours in the north. It has been a fundamental tenet of territory development, or it was up until August 2001.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move that the Leader of the Opposition be granted an extension of time to continue his remarks.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted? No, leave is not granted.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, there is no extension of time because the standing orders are clear. If you cannot be organised enough to get your remarks down within the 20 minutes required under the standing orders relating to Matters of Public Importance, bad luck.
I will tell you why you went over your 20 minutes. We heard about superannuation. I looked back at the letter about public importance, not a mention about superannuation. We heard about law and order, imprisonment rates and the rest. Is it in the letter? No. Not a mention of that. It was not a matter of public importance raised in here, so how dare you treat this Assembly with contempt and bring into your matter of public importance all manner of rambling areas? Cadets, welfare, ‘sit down money’, public service! Not mentioned. If it is a matter of public importance, you should have the decency and courtesy under the standing orders to put it in the letter to the Speaker so that the government can respond.
Now, if you want debate on your points raised in your matter of public importance, put them in the letter, get it to the Speaker before 8 am and they will be addressed. They will be addressed. It was the same treatment under the same standing order that existed when we were in opposition all those years. I have a bit of an idea, after 13 years in this place, about the rules.
Mr Baldwin: Not much.
Mr STIRLING: The member over the back, you would be too lazy to ever get a matter of public importance up.
Mr Baldwin: You are the lazy one. You do not want to debate anything. You are absolutely lazy.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly!
Mr STIRLING: He would never be bothered to do it. He well knows the rules: 20 minutes and that is it. He well knows that if you are going to raise a matter of public importance, you have the decency to stick by the standing orders and advise the Speaker so that the government has some idea of what it is about and can respond. Some of those matters are quite worthy of debate and we would be happy to debate it, but you dropped them …
Mr Baldwin: You are the minister. Deal with them! Deal with them as the minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, order!
Mr STIRLING: You dropped them in defiance of standing orders without giving government time.
The other point the Leader of the Opposition needs to realise is the fact that they have General Business Day, which is the day on the parliamentary calendar that rolls around every so often when the opposition has the opportunity to put on the floor of this House for debate any matter of policy that it wants to stand up and deliver. It is a far more appropriate time - in fact, the proper time and the time allowed for that on General Business Day - to propose statements, motions, any item you like in order to get your agenda discussed.
A matter of public importance is a matter that is important enough in the public arena to be brought to the House on that day and it is allowed the time of the Chamber to deal with that matter on that day. It is certainly not a tool for a wide-ranging, rambling debate touching on 101 issues.
Nonetheless, despite the fact that the opposition seems to be confused with the difference between a media release and a policy, someone over there has been very busy. Someone over there has been quite busy over the last few days. I suspect Gary Shipway, given his name – we have CLP government that will change the Territory’s payroll system: Gary Shipway. Good one, Shippers. He has been up there doing his job. CLP will give Territory public servants opportunity; government’s hire-from-the-south policy will be ditched: Shippers again. HIH jobs levy to go: Gary Shipway. Asian Relations and Trade will be returned to the priority it should be: Gary Shipway. The days of ‘sit down money’ must end: Gary Shipway. Shippers has had a big couple of days, getting out a couple of media releases, which they have the hide to come in here and call policies.
Policy implies a little bit of consideration, a little bit of development, a little bit of detail, unlike a media release which, in fact, they are not even policies, in some parts they say, ‘We will examine other areas of taxation particularly those instances where Territorians have to pay a tax on a tax’. Who signed up to that under the inter-governmental agreement? Who was the government in the year 2000? Who was the Treasurer and the Chief Minister of the day who signed up that that is the way it will be done? Who put up the tax, the stamp duty on insurance from 8% to 10%?
Mr Baldwin: Oh go home, you are a joke. Sit down.
Mr STIRLING: You did, you goose. You were probably in Cabinet at the time it went down and now you want to take it all off. You were a part and you were a member and a minister of the government that signed up to the inter-governmental agreement where all the states and territories said this is the way GST will operate no matter what, it goes on the final product. If we are to walk away from the inter-governmental agreement, it may well leave us on a sticky wicket, and I would be interested to know what the implications there might be. It is pretty easy from opposition; you want to tear everything you ever signed up to. Anything you ever signed up to you want to walk away from.
Let us get to some of the detail of just what is in this great manifesto on economics, because Territorians need to understand it is a recipe for huge tax increases, and fewer services, and it will send the Territory broke, just like you did prior to August 2001.
Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition proposes the abolition of payroll tax; that will be $96m plus hit on the Territory budget. In fact, in his media release, he gets it drastically wrong because he refers to payroll tax and the $96m take, and he says, ‘A sizeable part of the $96m is a book entry within the government because departments and agencies pay payroll tax. This is not additional revenue for a government’. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
The $96m is entirely raised from outside of the government and the revenue from government is about $49m. There is the $96m problem for a start, and this is what happens when a media release begins before policy without any consideration or in fact close examination of the facts. So even before he starts his campaign on economics, he has a $96m blunder in his mathematics. That does not bode well for a future Treasurer in a Northern Territory government.
He goes on to spend some time talking about other taxes. He wants to do away with all state-like taxes. Apart from leaving us absolutely entirely in the hands of the federal government, at its mercy, what impact do you think that would have at the Treasurers’ conference? When we go to Canberra, we have to do battle with some pretty hard-nosed Treasurers around this country from the likes of Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia.
We have to battle to ensure that the relativities are maintained so that the Northern Territory either maintains or improves its share, so we can get money that compensates us for the distance, and for our small and scattered population across a huge land mass. Every time we go there, as I did early last year, it was the premiers of Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria who were launching attack on the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation. That would be enormously damaging to the Territory, to have all of those disadvantaged factors taken into account - where they do and give us more money - to have that thrown out. However, if we were to front there and say, ‘Oh, we are not raising any taxes. We are just here to get our share from the Commonwealth’, can you imagine how long you would last asking the federal Treasurer to defend you against the mercenaries of the likes of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. They would simply chop you up and spit you out. You would certainly get a very poor deal out of the Commonwealth.
How on earth could we maintain the argument for a high relativity based on all the factors of disadvantage that we have in the Territory when we make no taxation effort at all on our own behalf? What it would result in, with absolute certainty, is a reduction in federal financial assistance, and you would have to say the Commonwealth would have no choice but to do that. So we would not have a $96m hole, as we have already found on the first read of the figures, but a much greater hole to repair as the Commonwealth grants dried up.
How would you fix that if you were the Leader of the Opposition and you have trotted into this mine field? You do not have a clue what you are talking about. What would you do? You would have to cut services or you would have to introduce new taxes to make up the shortfall. With the new taxes that you would introduce, you would look at the Productivity Commission, and that says you should put up your land tax. We do not even have one. Notwithstanding the fact that the Leader of the Opposition says we have increased land tax, we do not even have one. He said in a media release the other day that we have increased land tax - fire services he might look at, ambulance levy he might look at and, of course, those sorts of taxes would begin to apply to everyone. Small business and Territorians would pay them and it would be a direct blow to the pockets of small business which currently do not pay payroll tax if they are under $600 000. However, they would pay a land tax, a fire services levy.
Cuts to services …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: You want to have a look at that land tax in terms of the state comparisons - $12 800 in New South Wales - not applied here at all. That is why we are the second lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia. That is why we have the lowest rate of taxation on small business in the country by a factor of half. The next state closest to us is South Australia and they are over twice what we levy on small business. But you put in your land tax and fire services levy and everyone pays; small business as well.
You also have to cut services and the three big spenders, there is no secret there, are education, health and police. So straight away the CLP would be reversing the improvements we have made in those areas. In fact, in his media statement today, the Opposition Leader refers to ‘Labor’s social engineering’. He did not expand on that tonight. I am still not clear what he means. However, we think if it means keeping people healthy and that is social engineering, then yes, we stand for it, we are right in line for it. If it is getting people educated, if that is social engineering, then we are guilty of that too. If having more police on the streets is social engineering, then Labor is right into social engineering and, in fact, proud of it.
He has made an absolute meal of his first foray into economic policy. He has the figures wrong, he has threatened the economic future of the Territory, he is going to cut services, he is going to send us broke again.
Let us go to this quickly to some of the detail of the motion. In trend terms, May 2002, which was your starting point for comparison of employment, was the most recent peak in the Territory’s employment cycle – not surprising why he chose May 2002. Fair, fair. It would have been fair to choose August 2001 when we came to government, but why would you pick May 2002? Aha! Because it was the highest! It coincided with the pick-up in employment and the early phases of the railway.
If the comparison has been made from the most recent trough in trend employment - and when was that? June 2000, at just 90 000, rather than the most recent peak, rather than the estimated loss of 3000 jobs that he comes in and trumpets about rather gleefully, there would have, in fact, been an increase of 6200 jobs. Statistics are great. They are a great tool for informing you, but they are also a mischievous tool depending on how you apply them and what sort of time frames you apply them against.
‘Fewer Territorians have full-time jobs now than August 2001’. The number of unemployed persons has fallen from 8200 in trend terms in August 2001, to just 4600 in January 2004. In the same period, the trend unemployment rate fell from 7.8% to 4.5%. Of course, what he does say is that it is all going to be fuelled or he is going to pay for all of this from GST revenues because of increase from $1.2bn in 2000-01 to more than $1.6bn by $400m, and Territory business is suffering under the burden of the tax on jobs, that is payroll tax. There is no GST windfall - let us get this straight once and forever.
We get what we expected to get based on our relativity. If there had been a windfall to the extent that you are talking about, why are we still running a deficit budget? Why would we not have had $300m or $400m tucked up in a bank or a hollow log? There is no hollow log. We are still spending more than we receive; we are still in deficit territory. There is no GST windfall. We are already, as I said, a low-taxing jurisdiction. The Commonwealth Grants Commission 2003 update confirms the Territory levies, taxes, fees and charges at just 92% of the level which would reflect an effort comparable with the other states and the ACT. If the Territory were to reduce taxes further, it would risk the Territory’s GST revenue funding by highlighting a lack of own source revenue effort which would encourage the other jurisdictions - they already did, they did it last year - New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, to get together to try to bang Costello and push the feds around for a review of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and that most important principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation.
That is what would happen. The nett benefit to the Territory budget from GST arrangements is expected to be $76m in 2003-04. That remains less than the $126m hole that they left us with when we came to government and the Territory budget must also service an accumulated nett debt of close to $2bn.
Madam Speaker, in terms of what the GST has meant to the Northern Territory in 2001-02 - zilch, zilch. In fact we got budget balancing assistance which was the commitment from the Commonwealth that you would not be worse off under GST than you were under the new arrangements. If the GST pool did not get you to where you would have been had there been no change to the tax system, they would give you budget balancing assistance. New South Wales is still in there. We will be in there until about 2007. We moved out of budget balancing assistance for the first time in 2002-03. What was the extent of the GST effect pushing us into greenfield or more ahead of what we would have been under the old arrangements? $9m. Zilch in 2001-02, $9m in 2002-03, standing now in 2003-04 at $76m with a question mark. Why is it a question mark? Because the feds still have enormous difficulty estimating what the size of the GST pool will be because, of course, it depends on consumption.
To look at the GST in isolation is misleading. Although GST revenues are increasing, the Commonwealth is systematically at the same tightening the purse strings in the areas of other funding provided to the states and territories. The Australian Health Care Agreement signed late last year is a typical example. States were forced to sign an agreement which represented a cut of $16m to the Territory, $1bn cut nationally compared to continuing the previous agreement. They signed under duress because it would have been further cut and there would have been penalties applied by the federal government if states and territories did not sign up.
Territory businesses suffering under the burden of the tax on jobs, ie payroll tax: payroll is reducing. In our current term we have reduced the payroll tax rate from 6.5% to 6.2%, provided in the 2002-03 budget and again in the 2003-04 budget and it is no secret that we have in the forward estimates $3m for 2004-05 and $3m in 2005-06 to put there for further successive reductions. Now, as we set out in our pre-election financial statement that we would push payroll tax levels down to comparable levels of those of our neighbours, that is Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland, and we continue to do that.
Madam Speaker, replacing the payroll tax with another tax does have serious implications for small business. The Territory’s payroll tax is paid by 21% of Territory employers, but just 7% of payroll tax payers operate exclusively in the Territory. Small business does not pay payroll tax but it would pay a land tax, it would pay a fire and emergency services levy as applied in all other states, and it would be also paid by householders, and land tax would be paid by investment property owners. Any time I see Mr George Cridland, he comes up to me, stands on my toes, looks me straight in the eye - he is not a big guy, but he looks me straight in the eye - and he says ‘No land tax’. And I have made him a promise, just to try to get him off the subject, that whilst I am Treasurer of the Northern Territory there will be no land tax, Mr Cridland. And he sort of smiles and we get on to another topic of conversation.
The Territory is a low taxing jurisdiction. The Grants Commission assesses us to be the second lowest taxing jurisdiction. We raised the second lowest tax revenue per capita of all the states and territories and we raised the lowest recurrent tax, for example taxes that occur every year on a regular basis - the payroll tax, the land tax, the fire and emergency services levy, the bank account taxes, motor vehicle registration fees - all of those are from small business. We raised the lowest recurrent. The next highest state, raising just under double, is South Australia and the figures are something like $15 000 plus for South Australia against our $7500. We compare well because unlike most other states and the ACT we do not raise land tax, we do not raise a fire and emergency services levy and we do not stamp duty home mortgages.
Under the Martin government, commercial leases with rent – we have made tax cuts. Commercial leases with rent of $30 000 or less are now exempt. Hiring arrangements with rental receipts below $90 000 are now exempt from stamp duty. The threshold was previously $36 000. First home buyers now receive a maximum concession of $3640 off the cost of stamp duty payable on the purchase of their home. It was previously $2096. It has made our stamp duty payable for a medium-priced first home the second lowest of the states. Other home owners now pay $1500 less stamp duty on the purchase, which made the Territory stamp duty payable on a medium-priced home not being a first home to be third lowest. Corporate groups can now access more efficient asset structures due to the introduction of an exemption that applies to the restructuring of assets and a reduction to the stamp duty payable on the grant or renewal of a franchise.
The Leader of the Opposition has a few problems, Madam Speaker. The first one is to find out how he made the blue about the $96m. He has to straighten that up, and Territorians have to realise that a CLP government will be a high taxing government and he will send us broke.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Leader of the Opposition in the matter of public importance. Before I embark on my speech, I would like to address an issue that the Deputy Chief Minister raised earlier.
I refer you to Standing Order 77, speech time limits, in which it says:
- Discussion of a definite matter of public importance - whole debate2 hours
There is no fixed restriction on how much time a person can have other than the first 20 minutes but, at the end of the Standing Order, it says that we can extend time if need be. I cannot tolerate the Deputy Chief Minister walking in here and changing standing orders on the run. There is a process for this, and I tell the Deputy Chief Minister to observe the process. You have bastardised this whole thing for so long, these last two and a half years.
For two and a half years, we have seen this government squander many opportunities to advance the prosperity of the Northern Territory. For two and a half years, we have seen the government’s neglect in fostering business and employment in the Territory. For two and a half years, we have seen the loss of jobs – thousands of jobs, 3000 all up, as he himself admitted - despite the building of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and the onset of the gas onshore projects.
How much more disastrous would it be, the current parlous state of the Northern Territory, had the CLP not delivered on these two projects for the Martin Labor government on a silver platter? The comment in the community that the Martin Labor government does not know how to govern is never truer than now. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the Labor Party never anticipated that it would win the last general election, hence it was not prepared to govern, not ready to govern and they have not been able to get their minds around governing for the Territory.
Since the start of this year, the government has done multiple back flips on its platform initiatives, now seen in the cold light of day as impractical, major impositions on the people of the Northern Territory with government hands in Territorian pockets at every opportunity.
It has been the highest taxing government that we have seen in the Territory. Many have lost count of the number of promises that this Martin Labor government has broken since coming to government. The maladministration is simply unbelievable. Recently, a correspondent sent me a list, which he titled: Martin government first term report card: F (fail). It was a list of Territory Labor maladministration failures. His list extends for three full pages of close type, single line spaced. I have skipped some and paraphrased others for brevity. He wrote, and I quote:
- Broken election promises with government bank charges and fee rates retained. Stamp duty levels retained and
tinkering at the edges with payroll tax. Inactivity whilst small business is starved. Chamber warns economic crises
in small business. Creation of commercial rental glut for quitting existing tenancies and creating new tenancies.
No great plans. All major initiatives handed on a plate, due to previous government action, including Alice Springs
to Darwin railway and the onshore gas project.
Outrageous $90 motor vehicle registration fee hike proposed. Panic stricken back flip at angry reaction. Nett
population loss due to exodus of workers voting with their feet, drying up of jobs and skills. Frivolous waste of
funds on electorate offices while Royal Darwin Hospital Accident Emergency unopened because of cash lack.
Incompetent portfolio handling of Health and Community Services tolerated while health suffers. Community
service cuts. Nurses placed on contract and treated with industrial contempt. Procession of CEOs blamed or
left to carry burden of government initiatives leaving in droves.
Culture of importing personnel from south in all things from kindred southern governments. No faith in local
recruitment, given to unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled labour, which is imported. Botched arrangements
with public relations, openings of railway and general public treated with contempt. Small business closing at
increasing rate as they are hit with government costs and charges. Pool fencing administration an absolute
nightmare for pool owners selling properties and actually costing Territorians $21m.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to Standing Order 94…
Dr LIM: May I have the clock frozen while we actually talk?
Mr HENDERSON: … which is very specific in regards to a member can bring a matter of public importance to the House, to define that matter of public importance in correspondence to the Speaker, and the House then debates the matter.
The Deputy Opposition Leader is ranging from everything from pool fencing to importing public servants from down south. I do not see any mention of these issues or any way where you could construe pool fencing being a matter of public importance that is identified in this letter, which identified four very clear and specific points to you, Madam Speaker, with regard to the number of jobs and the economy and taxation issues. I would ask that members contributing to this debate to stick to the matters that are raised in this particular correspondence. I put on notice that we will not be moving from the convention of two and two on this issue, because the issues that are being raised in this matter are not the ones that are being debated.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, resume your seat. Member for Greatorex.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Greatorex is on his feet, member for Macdonnell.
Dr LIM: I repeat what the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, that in the whole of the letter it says that ‘it is an urgent matter of public importance that a new approach must be found and new policies implemented’. I am giving an overview of what has happened in the Territory, the cause of job losses, the issues that are relating directly to the MPI, and then I will embark on what we will do as a CLP government.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I will say the same to you as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, make sure you tie your arguments into the matter of public importance.
Dr LIM: I shall do that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, the member for Macdonnell has something to say.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I just hope to guide you on this particular issue.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not want your guidance.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, in relation to a precedent in this House on this very topic …
Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on it. The member for Greatorex understands what I have said.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Alice Springs is going backwards also, losing population, while alcohol-related problems and itinerant problems remain too high. Continuous problems in the Education Department due to administrative confusion, teachers dissatisfied, even books refused until fees met, and the list goes on and on.
Definitely, this government has failed in governing for the Northern Territory and, as this correspondent wrote: ‘Who, reading this, could believe Labor passes any test? Even of their objectives, Labor must be expelled’. I, along with many Territorians, am very disappointed in this government, which came in with a blaze of promises that they have now failed to deliver.
The Territory’s slogan is, ‘The Difference is Opportunity’ and indeed, the Territory is full of opportunity, but you would not know it looking at how this government has promoted the Territory. It has been a wasted two and a half years. It is no wonder that Territorians are just dying to get rid of this government. The Chief Minister knows it and she is running scared. Her series of back-flips alone demonstrate a government in damage control.
While GST funds have been pouring into the Territory since Labor has been in government, many initiatives have been cut back. Larapinta Drive upgrade, which was on the forward capital works program as recent as late last year, has now fallen off the list. DTAL, which employs people in this community, has been unable to deliver its driver training in Darwin to students at Kormilda, as they were told there were not sufficient funds for them to do the course. The announcement by the minister for education that he is providing $2m for school equipment and teacher furniture, but on further investigation it is found to be money from next year’s budget. And then, the $1m promised by the health minister for equipment just last week, is this also money borrowed from next year’s budget? So, more opportunities lost.
Has the government been so incompetent that it has run out of money and they have had to cancel planned projects and borrow money from next year’s budget for others? You have received, as the leader said, $400m more than the CLP government did in 2000-01. A CLP government will be strong in promoting stability and security in business. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the CLP’s intention to significantly reduce payroll tax. We will ensure that, on being in government, the Northern Territory payroll tax rate will be the lowest in the country, and we adjust it to stay the lowest in the country as other states strive to follow our initiative, with our ultimate aim of a zero rate. To complement the reduction of payroll tax will be the threshold. At the moment it is pegged at $600 000, a level that has not been adjusted for many years. A CLP government will lift the threshold so that it does not prove a barrier for business to take on more employees.
The Treasurer glibly trotted out the media release about how much it will cost - $90m or $96m he said earlier. The CLP never articulated that it would have a zero payroll tax rate from day one - never did.
With the time limit that I have, now is not the time to go into figures and calculations. The CLP has managed good budgets before and will do so again. We will manage good budgets that will create opportunities for Territorians with growing of jobs. We will reverse the population drift. There will be business confidence. There will be population growth. There will be construction growth. The Territory will again be the place of opportunity, and black and white will benefit.
Law and order - a pre-election promise by the Martin Labor government that they will be tough on crime. Has the Chief Minister looked at the papers today? Just today’s paper will be enough. You do not have to go very far back. Look at this: ‘Gang Warfare’. Has she seen the concerns expressed about the youth gang warfare in the suburbs? This is the tough on crime policy of the Martin Labor government. Tough on crime – it is a laugh. As soon as it came into government, the Martin Labor government scrapped mandatory sentencing. The Chief Minister effectively told Territorians: ‘Do what you like. It is okay, you will not be punished for it’. Under the CLP, if you do the crime, you do the time. Territorians are sick of being victims of crime. People are saying they have had enough. Women and children want to feel safe in their communities and the CLP will deliver policies that will engender that environment.
In terms of education for which I have responsibility, I have always expressed a belief that education provides the avenue by which a person can achieve his or her best potential. To do that, you provide good education to our children. For that reason, the CLP will devote significant attention to provision of good education for all Territorians. Even in the short time that I have had responsibility for the portfolio, I have learnt that class sizes have continued to be a vexed issue for teachers. At the outset, the CLP government will introduce class sizes of 20 students per teacher in the first three years of primary school. Over time, it is hoped that this teacher to student ratio would be extended across the primary sector. Talking to teachers recently, I have heard of the quality teaching that they can provide when their classes are 20 students, whereas classes of 25 or more now becomes more an exercise of mini-crowd control than teaching.
I have also explored the issue of pastoral care for our schoolchildren. For too long, school student counsellors have been appointed among the cohort of teachers in a school. Often these teachers-cum-counsellors have little counselling skills, but are appointed by the principal to undertake an activity as a partial load during the teaching day. I know that parents want their children to be better looked after than that. Using teacher/counsellors for such a critical job is not performing to Territorians’ expectations for their children. I want the student counsellors to be specialist counsellors whose duty will be to provide student counsellor services only. They will be supernumerary to the number of teachers in any school, and I will ensure the correct ratio of counsellors to students in each region, based on an effective counsellor/student ratio that allows students to get counselling that they need.
The other side of training is in careers counselling. There has been the practice in our schools to have a teacher designated the job to coordinate careers counselling. In my opinion, teachers are trained to teach, to educate, to achieve satisfactory student outcomes in terms of curriculum learning. Their skills should be devoted to that. Careers counselling should be provided by specialist careers counsellors recruited from industry to provide advice derived from real life industry experience. Students, whether they wish to continue to university or into trade or traineeship, could seek the professional advice of a dedicated careers counsellor. I know the teaching industry and parents alike will support me in my ambition to deliver these extra bodies into schools to perform their specialised functions. With improved careers advice, I anticipate that more students will seek vocational education as their primary choice. It is unfortunate that the national debate on post-compulsory education has focussed so much on higher education only.
For members’ information, of the national cohort of Year 12 students only 30% achieve a place in university. Of that 30%, only half of them ever graduate with a qualification. Therefore, there is 85% of our Year 12 students who require educating and training other than at a university. Under the CLP government, we would devote adequate resources to vocational education, taking it out of the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and set it back in its own departmental structure, run by people who understand vocational education and training.
Aboriginal Territorians will be supported to develop businesses of their own. A land-rich group of people, they will be assisted with skills to engender benefits from their land. Through their economic development will come financial independence allowing them to get away from soul destroying welfare system. The opportunities that are so abundant in the Territory will be made accessible to Aboriginal Territorians. We are not like the Martin Labor government whose policies for Aboriginal people have been to continue them in a welfare cycle of ever increasing dependence on welfare. That has always been Labor’s weakness a penchant for social engineering rather than creating an environment where an individual can achieve his or her greatest potential.
Territorians are also concerned about their health and how health services are being delivered particularly from the hospitals. For two and half years the Chief Minister has allowed this important portfolio to be managed by an ineffective minister whom she has described as being unable to communicate, and a new minister who spends more time swanning around overseas holding the hand of the member for Wanguri than being at home looking after the ailing Health Department. Under the CLP, health services would improve patients accessing services in a timely manner …
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move that the member be given an extension of time so that he may complete his remarks.
Leave denied.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker. With regards to a matter of public importance, the standing orders indicate that there is a limit of two hours for the conduct of a matter of public importance and to restrict members who are making contributions to strictly 20 minutes I believe is outside standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: The time limits are listed in the standing orders …
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I understand that they are listed. However, because it still falls within the parameters set in the standing orders of two hours with an extension being afforded to the honourable member, it would still keep us within the parameter of two hours.
Madam SPEAKER: I realise that but it is the wish of the parliament whether the leave is granted and the leave is not granted.
Dr LIM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. I quoted earlier at the start of my speech Standing Order 77, and 77 extends for nearly a page and a half. Right at the end of Standing Order 77 it says also:
- In the Assembly or in Committee - extension of time - with consent of the majority of the Assembly or the committee a
member may be allowed to continue a speech interrupted under the foregoing provisions of the standing order on a
motion without debate ….
Madam SPEAKER: But leave was not granted. That is what I have said to you.
Ms CARTER: Point of order, Madam Speaker. If I may when you asked whether we would second the motion then, we actually had the numbers. We had one extra person in the House on the ayes.
Dr Lim: And nobody called division.
Madam SPEAKER: No, but I asked if leave was granted which was defeated.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: When you put the question, ‘Is leave granted’, if there is one dissenting voice, leave is not granted.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, if I may speak to the Clerk’s advice. For the last three minutes we have had three members of the government sneaking through the doors of the lobby. Prior to that there were more members of the opposition in this Chamber than the government. Now, if the Leader of Government Business has the voice of his 13 members then the rest of them do not have to be here at all and he can just sit there to represent the 13 members.
Madam SPEAKER: I cannot wind the clock back, member for Greatorex. The Clerk’s advice is if you want to test it, call a division.
Dr LIM: Well, it is a pretty pointless exercise, as you well know, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, let us get to the context and the point of this debate this evening, a matter of public importance debate that the Leader of Opposition gave notice as per standing orders this morning. I well recall the member for Macdonnell pontificating here when he was on this side of the House about the sanctity of the matter of public importance debate and how it really had to be referenced and targeted to issues of the day. He went to volumes of parliamentary precedents and history through the Westminster system. I do not have the Parliamentary Record with me from that time, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker. With regard to the issue just raised, the very self-same position was taken by the member for Nhulunbuy when a matter of public importance was raised by the then opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I well remember being lectured by the member for Macdonnell about having to stick very specifically to matters of public importance that were immediately to the public’s mind. There has to be very specific reference in terms of the letter, and I am sure that with a little bit of research, we can pull back those comments.
If we look to the letter here today and the contributions from the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I find it absolutely astounding that in terms of the context of the letter delivered to Madam Speaker this morning that deals with noting the allegation that more than 3000 jobs have been lost since May 2002, noting fewer Territorians have full-time jobs than in August 2001, noting whilst GST revenues blah, blah, and noting this government seems to be unable to ease the situation – that is jobs and GST revenues – that as an urgent matter of public importance, a new approach must be found and new policies implemented in relation to the points that were noted.
Any student of English language would interpret that the new approach and new policies as stated in the last sentence are reference to the issues arising from the alleged job losses and alleged $400m increase in GST revenues. I find it astounding from someone who achieved very high positions in the education profession that you could not construe – if you wanted to discuss the world and not only the Northern Territory economy, but social policy, if he wanted to discuss that as a specific issue of public importance, he would have included the other issues in the letter.
That is by the by because this really is an abuse of process and the system in regards to some of the issues that were trotted out in here tonight. How on earth you could get pool fencing into a matter of public importance on jobs and GST revenues absolutely astounds me. Then, again, I have come to learn that nothing that the member for Greatorex can say in this House can astound me any more.
There is a long way to go between now and the next election. If the first few months of the Leader of the Opposition’s reign is anything to go by, he is going to have to do a lot better than the magic pudding economics and the mantra that they are going to cut and abolish all taxes but continue to maintain all services and invest even more money.
That will not wash. As my colleague, the Treasurer, said: a media release does not a policy make. The scrutiny from this side of the House will come into supposed policy announcements that may come from the members opposite. Policies are supposed to have detail, and they are supposed to be costed and funded. Abolishing all state taxes and reliance on GST revenues is absolutely out of the realms of even the most basic understanding of economics and the financial relationship between the Commonwealth and the other states.
We have to maintain our revenue effort. That is an absolute fundamental of the system. We have to maintain our revenue effort commensurate with the other states and the Commonwealth. If the Leader of the Opposition reckons that he can swan down to Treasurers’ conferences and look his colleague, Peter Costello, in the eye and say, ‘We are going to abolish all taxes and charges in the Northern Territory, but we want the Commonwealth to give us more’, he has another think coming.
Territory business will see this for what it is: an absolute opportune, desperate grasp for a media headline from a Leader of the Opposition who has made absolutely zero impact in the first three months he has been in the job. It is a promise to work towards the abolition of payroll tax, $96m; how are you going to fund that? Not a word in terms of how that is going to be funded. There are three ways that it can be dealt with, the $96m black hole in the opposition’s policy, as it was enunciated today. There are three ways: you can raise other taxes and charges or implement new taxes and charges. The payroll tax is a tax that everybody in this nation would like to see go, but it is a tax that is levied on businesses with a payroll of $600 000 or more, and small business does not have to pay the payroll tax. If you are going to abolish payroll tax on the big end of town, you are going to have to implement new taxes on every business in the Northern Territory. The only avenues there are land tax and a fire services duty, or a horrendous increase in stamp duty, so you can fund your $96m by raising revenue in other areas.
Madam Speaker, the other thing you can do is slash spending. You can slash services to the tune of $96m. If that is the approach, then the Leader of the Opposition has to say which agencies are going to bear the burden of that $96m cut, how many public servants are going to be thrown on to the scrap heap, how many schools and health services are going to be closed, how many of the extra 200 police that the government is committed to putting out onto our streets you are not going to put out on the streets, and return the Northern Territory to the levels of crime and law and order problems that we saw two years ago when they were in government.
You can slash services, and you can cut public service jobs, that is another way you can fund your $96m. The third way, which was the tried and trusted way under the previous administration, is to put it on the bankcard. Go and borrow the money, borrow money from the banks and pay for recurrent expenditure. They just keep digging a hole for future generations of Territorians. Do not worry about the future, do not worry about services to Territorians in the future. Put it all on the bankcard now, it will help us get back into office.
Well, Territorians have learnt never, certainly never, to trust members opposite with the Territory’s coffers when they were totally exposed when we came to government in terms of the deceit and the deception of the budget papers that were presented to the parliament just eight weeks before the last Territory election, where the budget papers showed a projected deficit for the financial year to the tune of about $8m and it came in at $126m.
There are three ways you can fund tax cuts: by increasing other taxes, by slashing services, or by putting it on the bankcard. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition did not go to any of those and talked about windfall gains under the GST. My colleague, the Treasurer, gave a very clear description in terms of those GST arrangements coming in as they were projected, and certainly the increase in GST revenues of $76m that were projected in 2003-04 certainly remain far less than $100m annual budget deficit that we inherited, and the overall Territory debt which, per capita, is far and away in excess of any other state of close to $2bn.
The actual financial bankruptcy and policies of the opposition are going to continue in the lead-up to the next Territory election. They have absolutely no creditability when it comes to budget management and telling Territorians the truth about the state of the Northern Territory’s finances, and running out as policy uncosted, unfunded promises to slash taxes to small business, to eradicate a whole raft of taxes, without saying how you are actually going to fund those commitments. The business community will very quickly see through that and, certainly, they will not be impressed.
The Leader of the Opposition has put out a so-called policy today, which turns out to be a media release that was totally inaccurate. We look forward to further work from the opposition in coming up with detailed costed policies. The benchmark has been set - fully costed and signed off by Access Economics; nothing, but nothing, other than fully costed policies that are signed off by the likes of Access Economics as being independently verified.
Territorians will not believe them. Territorians will not believe when a Leader of the Opposition comes out and says, ‘We are going to abolish payroll tax and a whole raft of other government taxes’. Unless you can say how you are going to fund that and have that independently assessed and audited, Territorians will not believe you. It is magic pudding economics at its most fundamental. It is absolutely amazing that somebody who achieved very senior roles in education could not put a bit more effort into developing policies.
I will not go through and focus on all of the red herrings that other members opposite have spoken in regards to every social and economic issue that the Territory is facing at the moment. However, I will focus on what was in the MPI: the number of jobs that have supposedly been lost to the economy. My colleague, the Treasurer, very clearly showed that it depends where you start your flat line from. If you start it from the peak of the jobs boom which was absolutely there - large, lumpy infrastructure projects, peaks and troughs - we are going to have another one coming towards the end of this calendar year where, if you talk to Bechtel, the requirement for 900 tradesmen is there to be working on the LNG plant. That is going to be great for the period of time whilst they are there. To count those people as permanent parts of the Northern Territory work force and that peak that is going to be achieved on one specific project - should be carried through - again, it is distortion of the real activity that is happening in the economy.
In the same way, if you take it at a real low, you could argue that there has been a 6000 jobs growth in the economy. The pleasing thing to see in the numbers and the trends, is that the rate of unemployment is falling in the Northern Territory and people are returning to the work force. We can see that is only going to improve throughout the rest of this calendar year and next calendar year, with the huge projects that are coming to the Northern Territory. I just wish that members opposite, for once, would stop talking the economy down - a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom and gloom. Where is the excitement about the $5bn LNG project that is occurring across the harbour at Wickham Point? Where is the excitement about that and grasping those opportunities and working with Territory business to make sure that they get their share? Many of them already are. I was out there a couple of weeks ago, and there are a lot of happy Territory businesses which are participating in the project.
We have major Defence projects about to kick off this year in a very significant way. There is $78m at Robertson Barracks for the Air ‘87 Tiger helicopters - 20 years through life service and support for that – and Territory businesses are excited about that; $52m at Bradshaw for the field training area at Timber Creek - increased Defence exercises that are going to come to the Northern Territory; the $50m announcement by Vopak at long last, relocating the tank farm out to East Arm - 70% of that work is going to go to local contractors. Where was the great acclamation from members opposite saying that is a fantastic project for the Northern Territory and should give everybody a shot in the arm? There is $100m committed to the convention centre to leverage $600m to $700m worth of redevelopment of the wharf - that is going to happen; $27.5m to boost tourism; $20m to Desert Knowledge. It goes on and on. Where is the support for the economy out there? Why aren’t you out there encouraging investment, encouraging business to invest in the Northern Territory because of this wave of work that is coming? No, we are going to talk doom and gloom, we are going to talk down the economy, we are going to talk down everything that is happening in the Northern Territory and we are not going to raise a cent in our own revenue. Territorians will not believe them, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I also rise to speak on this MPI tonight. I will begin by pointing out to honourable members some history in relation to matters of public importance. The issue of the specific nature of a matter brought before this House was raised on 10 October 2000 and indeed the then Leader of Government Business, Mr Palmer, climbed to his feet and tried to point out that the then opposition member, the member for Stuart and still now the member for Stuart, was trying to introduce a matter of public importance which was too vague.
It is interesting to pick up on the member for Nhulunbuy’s comments at that stage. This is what the member for Nhulunbuy had to say about matters of public importance:
- Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the minister has raised a question and asked you to counsel the
opposition because the matter of public importance is not specific enough to suit him as Leader of Government
Business. Nowhere under Standing Order 94, Discussion of Matter of Public Importance, do I see the word ‘specific’.
It is simply not there. So this a frivolous point of order and I think the member should be counselled in relation to
using this Chamber’s time on raising frivolous points of orders as the he just has.
And guess what? You won. That is exactly the point, you won.
So when your colleague comes in here and says, ‘I remember being lectured by the member for Macdonnell’, well, I will tell you what, it rests on the decision of the Speaker. So do not rewrite history when it suits you. What are you scared of in this House? Why are you scared of this Chamber hearing the opinions of members? That is really the hallmark of what this government has become.
Madam Speaker, I would like to continue with some of the comments that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to make, and he has asked me to continue with his comments. I am happy to do so, I am proud to do so. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to go along in this theme:
- More than a quarter of Territorians are Aboriginal and most of these live in smaller communities. We believe that the
days of ‘sit down money’ must end. The dependency on welfare has done more harm than good. People must be given
back their dignity, not paid off in the hope that problems will, if not go away, at least be silenced.
In the meantime, ways must be found to ensure that these monies are used to the benefits of all recipients. Ways can
be worked out to ensure that money given to itinerants to allow them to pay their fares back to the communities are
repaid. Why then cannot ways be worked out to ensure that various payments made to families and individuals
are not wasted on grog or ganga or kava, but rather used to improve the health and welfare of the family and the
individual? [The Leader of the Opposition] is committed, to finding ways to achieve this so families benefit from
these payments and not suffer even further.
But this is only a temporary solution. We must give communities the opportunities to get off welfare and pursue their
own economic development. It must not be in a paternalistic way that is now fashionable of telling them of what to do,
but rather it is the government’s role to assist them to do what they want to do.
Ways must be found to unlock the economic potential of the almost 50% of the land controlled by the land trusts. Ways
must be found to let traditional owners and residents of these lands improve their economic lot. It does not have to
be factories, or industries, or even the cash economy. It does not have to fit in with the western society model. There
were thriving micro-economies, and there can be again. The government’s role will not help to dictate.
I turn now to a group of very important Territorians – our public servants. Let me assure them first up, that the Leader
of the Opposition has no wish to create more turmoil within the public service by conducting a wholesale review of
the structure put in place by this government. But there are areas that must change because the priorities of the
CLP government are different from those of Labor. No better example is available than the way that this government
has downgraded Asian relations and trade. Fourteen years ago, the Leader of the Opposition’s predecessor as the
CLP leader, Marshall Perron, created a minister for Asian Relations and Trade with departmental back up to
positively promote the Territory’s cause with our neighbours to the north.
It has been a fundamental tenet of the Territory development, or it was up until August 2001, that our future lies more
with the billions of people to our north rather than focussed on the 20 million to our south. But what has this
government done? The priority given to Asian relations and trade has all but disappeared. First it became part of
the super-department Business, Industry and Resource Development. Now, according to that department’s latest
annual report, Asian Relations ranks as the sixth out of seven priorities of the Policy Development and Coordination
Group. International business and trade support is the fourth priority out of five of the Business and Trade
Development Group. They are not even seen as related any more. That will change.
We will once again give proper priority to our future. That is why it was a CLP government that fought so long and hard
to get on with the north-south railway. That is why it was a CLP government that invested so heavily in creating a new
port at East Arm. These were not ends in themselves; they were part of a strategy to engage with Asia with imports
and exports travelling through the Territory and Territory businesses and Territorians benefiting from the spin-offs.
A CLP government will put Asian relations and trade back amongst our highest priorities.
The other change to the public service that we will effect is to once again recognise that Territorians working in
various departments and agencies are a rich resource. They are a band of men and women dedicated to the
future development of the Territory and it is to them that the CLP government will look first and foremost when
CEOs or directors or section heads are required. We will head-hunt among Territorians to find the appropriate
people to run and manage the public service. We will not immediately reach for the telephone and engage
southern consultants to find southern bureaucrats …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Again, I raise Standing Order 94 that very specifically refers to ‘a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed, a very definite Matter of Public Importance’. Now, the letter notes alleged job losses and talks about GST revenues, and seeks a new approach and policies in relation to the points that are noted. Issues in regards to where public servants are hired from and the Asian Relations and Trade department have absolutely nothing to do with the matter of public importance and the definitive matters that have been identified by the Opposition Leader in his letter.
Madam SPEAKER: I reiterate what I said earlier. Member for Macdonnell, would you make sure your remarks conform to the matter of public importance.
Mr ELFERINK: I will certainly do that.
- We will not immediately reach for the telephone and engage southern consultants to find southern bureaucrats to
trapeze in on the top of dedicated Territory public servants.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I find this a total abuse…
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, I have allowed a lot of leverage today from both sides on the debate at hand. So we shall allow the member for Macdonnell to continue.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
- Each and every time this government has done that, they are saying to Territorians: ‘We don’t believe you are
good enough’. Look at the new Executive Management Group of the Health and Community Services department.
It has nine members, five of whom were recruited from interstate in the past two years. A sixth member was recruited
from the Chief Minister’s own office. What message has that recruitment policy of this government sent to the more
than 3800 Health department employees?
We will revise this anyone-but-a-Territorian policy. We believe in Territorians because we know that, like the CLP,
they are passionate about the Territory. We are different from Labor because we believe in creating opportunity
and not stifling the independence of Territorians. We are different because we believe in creating opportunity and
we have the track record to prove it. What opportunity has this government provided other than to carry on with
the CLP’s ideas and initiatives? Where are there ideas? Fencing swimming pools, imposing taxes, creating a
consultancy boom, pursuing a review-led recovery? We need to get the Territory moving again. We need to be
innovative, to push development, to seize opportunities likes creating a defence technology park, freeing up land
in Alice Springs, pushing the development of our horticultural industries in the Katherine-Daly area.
We need a Territory that attracts new Territorians, not sits back and watches while they leave in record numbers.
The Treasurer’s mid-year report reveals that, far from predicting an increase in population in 2003, he now expects
to have it fall by 0.02%. So where is the population strategy this government promised more than a year ago? Look
at the web site and you find the Chief Minister is still promising to have it finished by May 2003. Yes, 2003. At the
estimates committee debate she admitted it had been delayed but said it would be ready in October. We are still
waiting and, in the meanwhile, our population declines.
[I have faith, and the Leader of the Opposition has faith], in the future of the Northern Territory. [The Leader of the
Opposition] has bet the rest of his life into this future. [The Leader of the Opposition knows that] we can turn around
the negative figures in so many areas, and see the Territory in growth again. [The Leader of the Opposition knows that]
we can restore the confidence of the Territory businesses, to watch jobs grow, to improve health and education services,
[and he] and we will - a CLP government will. Long time Territorians know what the dead hand of Canberra rule did
for the Northern Territory.
Today’s Territorians are being given some idea of it again, because of this government’s belief in importing its advisors
and top public servants, its ideas and policies from down south. We will not, because we are proud of Territorians and
we are proud of the difference. Working together with Territorians we will create the opportunities and we will get
the Territory moving again.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about a couple of issues. Very quickly I wish to touch on two matters, and I will be bringing notice of these two matters into the House in due course for the next General Business Day The first matter I wish to discuss very quickly is an idea which I know has the support of the police association and, as shadow minister for police, I believe that, after doing some research interstate, it is worthwhile introducing a piece of legislation in to the Northern Territory which will prevent police officers individually being sued when they are acting in good faith.
The exact structure of that piece of legislation I will reveal to members of this House and in due course I will give a second reading speech, but the thrust of it will be quite simple. The thrust of it will be to protect those police officers who are doing their jobs and doing it well, and doing it to the very best of their ability in difficult circumstances, from being the subject of litigation when they are acting in good faith. This does not have any effect, of course, on the issue of vicarious liability of the police force itself, and those normal rules will continue to operate in that environment.
However, I am aware of suggestions in the past where police officers have been sued for purposes other than actually proving any form of negligence, in an effort to either discredit them as police officers, or to put pressure on them in their operation, as well as the fact that police officers have to make decisions in less than perfect situations. I believe that they should not have to worry about the fact that their house might be riding on that decision that they make at that time. It would be a very valuable contribution of this government to support the bill when I bring it in, to protect our police officers, without limiting the ability of people who feel a need to pursue legal action against the police force itself. As I said, I will enlighten the House further of what I am planning to do, in due course.
The other thing I wanted to touch on is the other bill that I wish to bring before this House on the next General Business Day, and that is to protect our ambulance officers. If you look at the Criminal Code now, there is a specific offence to assault a police officer, and makes it an aggravated assault in the workplace. As members will be fully aware, an assault is an unlawful application of force, and members would also be aware that the definition of ‘application of force’ and like terms include striking, touching, moving and the application of heat, light, noise, electrical or other energy, gas, odour or any other substance or thing if applied to such a degree as to cause injury or personal discomfort.
Taking that into consideration, then to scream into somebody’s ear while they are doing their job is an application of noise and will cause personal discomfort. I have seen it happen to ambulance officers when I did voluntary ambulance work in the past. It happened to me. It is very irritating and prevents you from doing your job. I believe that, like an assault against a police officer, it should also be considered to be an aggravated assault.
I also point out to members that the act of obscuring or obstructing an ambulance officer - though you would think that commonsense would dictate that you would not need a piece of legislation like that, but unfortunately, it happens – should also be introduced. Ambulance officers deserve the protection of this parliament. I am sure that members on both sides of this House would feel the same way.
I draw members’ attention to Outback Ambulance, Volume 14, No 1, December 2003. On pages 24 and 25 there is an article titled ‘Hazards of the Job’. With this, there are a couple of photographs. There is one ambulance with a star picket through the windscreen, jammed into the driver’s seat area. There is another ambulance which is a station wagon, which has lost its windscreen –clearly been struck by an object. There is a description by the author of that article, Mr Gary Carter, who is an ambulance officer in Alice Springs.
I have to digress briefly. My wife is also an ambulance officer in Alice Springs again after eight years of working offshore. So I have to declare a personal interest and do so readily and willingly and proudly, I must say.
At the end of the article after he described, effectively, being attacked by an armed assailant –which is an aggravated assault in its own right – he says this:
- If you are not treating your patient, then keep a continual outlook for possible warning signs. It is your responsibility
to watch your partner’s back. Remember! You want them to watch yours when it is your job.
I believe that this is an excellent proposal and I look forward to debating the matter in the House and having the matter passed into legislation as soon as practical. I look forward to government support of it eventually.
I also want to discuss Docker River and policing issues there. I say to the police minister: just not good enough! The police minister has built a police station at Kintore, which was on the long-term forward projections of the CLP government. They have entered into a bi-state agreement with Western Australia which I hope works very effectively and produces a good outcome for the people of Kintore.
However, the people of Docker River have been left swinging in the breeze, in that they have had deaths there recently and almost riotous conditions. They have had a house burnt down. It is my understanding at one stage 12 police officers were sent to the community to help settle things down. The fact of the matter is the community needs more support than it is currently getting.
The police officers sat Yulara are trying their very hardest to provide a service. This is in no way a criticism of them. However, at the end of the day they are still 210 km-odd from the people living at Docker River. Even on the best call-out scenario, you are waiting for at least 2 or 2 hours before you can get a police response to the most urgent crimes in the Docker River area.
I am aware that as part of the bi-state agreement that the minister did not do enough to ensure that the police station found its way to the Territory side of the border. However, there is still more to be done for the Docker River community. The Docker River community deserves the protection that this government is duty bound to give them. I would urge the police minister in the strongest possible terms to speak to the council there and organise the funding for police aides and the appropriate support for police aides to be maintained there, as well as assist the community in supplying decent accommodation for visiting police officers so many more overnight patrols can be done from both sides of the border in accordance with the bi-state agreement as it currently operates.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on the subject of police issues, I also raise again the situation at Watarrka, Kings Canyon: 300 000 tourists movements every year through the place, and 450 000 go through Ayers Rock, to give people an idea. At Ayers Rock there are four gazetted police officers, there is also an ambulance centre and support from a health clinic and all sorts of things. What is available at Watarrka? One clinic staff officer who also has the responsibility for looking after the small outstations in the area. The responsibility for looking after that area falls largely on the private business of Ian and Lyn Conway who run Kings Creek Station, by and large, and the provision of an emergency service trailer does not help because of the turnover of population in the area.
Every time you get somebody trained up at the actual Kings Canyon Resort, they are gone before too long, that is the way that these resorts work. These people are effectively now being indirectly taxed by this government in the reliance that this government has on their sense of civic duty. Their sense of civic duty means that they spend hundreds, if not thousands, of man hours every single year, going to accidents, making their airstrip available, all those sorts of things. And I should know because I have been there, I have stood there on the airstrip at 2 am in the morning helping to evacuate an Italian tourist. This is staff which is not paid for by the Northern Territory government, is given no assistance by the Northern Territory government and really deserves a lot more assistance. What terrifies me is that one of these days these people are going to respond to a call and their family or staff are going to be injured in the process or themselves, or that they are going to find themselves the subject of some sort of litigation because they are trying to do the right thing.
I urge this government in the strongest possible terms to contact the Conways and find some solution, put in decent numbers of health staff, even look at putting a police officer or a police station in that area. The amount of traffic and tourist movements in those areas is now getting to the point where it needs that sort of infrastructure. If you can find the wherewithal to build a police station at Kintore, which probably has 1000 movements per year, in terms of people coming and going from the community, perhaps a bit more, then you should be able to find a proper way of supporting the Kings Canyon area and the Kings Creek Station area which has 300 times that population movement through the area. It is an urgent situation. In the last few weeks, there have been accidents which these people have had to respond to. It costs them fuel, it costs them vehicles, and it costs them staff. It is just absurd that this situation is being allowed to continue.
It is absolutely absurd and this situation needs to be addressed. I urge the government in the strongest possible terms, get down there, communicate with these people, at least answer their letters, and find a way around this. At the moment the burden that they are carrying is far too onerous to expect any non-professional organisation, as they are, they are a tourist operation, they are not an emergency services response group, they are not professional doctors or first aiders. They are people with a strong sense of civic duty. One of these days there is going to be an accident that involves a bus which will be beyond their capacity. There needs to be a better response in place. I urge the government in the strongest possible terms, fix this problem and fix it soon.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with great regret when I inform the House of the passing of the second son of Yama Munungiritj and Lawawa Munungiritj of the Yarrwiti Gumatj people of Yirrkala in north-east Arnhem Land. Mr Munungiritj was the nephew of the very prominent fighter for land rights, Roy Marika, MBE. He was married to Raymattja Marika, the father of four children and grandfather to three. Mr Munungiritj was a traditional owner and a senior community member in his own right. He was always very active in promoting Yolngu culture, particularly in the areas of land and sea management.
He was a founding father of the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation and, for 11 years, helped guide the organisation to be one of the most successful indigenous land and sea management organisations in the country. Proof of Dhimurru’s success as a peak Yolngu organisation for land and sea management was the successful declaration of the Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area covering some 92 000 hectares on the Gove Peninsula. Though Mr Munungiritj always fought hard to guarantee Yolngu authority on the lands, he was a great believer in partnerships between the Yolngu and anyone who could assist Yolngu to manage and care for their traditional estates. In his time with Dhimurru, many successful programs were run by Dhimurru alone and in partnership with many other organisations and instrumentalities. Mr Munungiritj’s success in this work was recognised in part when Dhimurru won the 2002 Landcare Award and the 2001 Banksia Award.
Although his first love was in the area of land and sea management, he led a very active community life as well. As well as responsibilities and traditional ownership matters and ceremony, Mr Munungiritj was active in the Yirrkala Dhanbul Council as a councillor and sometime office holder, including a period as chairman. He was also very active at Yirrkala Community Education Centre, and was especially keen on promoting strong cultural awareness, both among Yolngu and non-Yolngu.
On behalf of the government of the Territory, I extend sincere sympathies to the Munungiritj family, the Marika family, the Yarrwiti Gumatj people, and the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation.
This evening I would also like to honour a very great Territorian, Hilda Jarman Muir. On Australia Day this year, I was privileged to be invited to launch Hilda Muir’s biography, Very Big Journey: My Life as I Remember It, published by Aboriginal Studies Press in Canberra. The book tells the story of the baby girl born at Manangoora in the Gulf who grew up to become a Yanyuwa elder and jungkayi for the country, traditional owner in the Yanyuwa land claim, spokesperson for the stolen generation in the High Court, respected matriarch, world traveller, trusted friend and now, in her senior years, an author.
Hilda has lived in my electorate at the Kurringal Flats for many years and I was very sad when she moved to Leanyer to the new seniors housing estate. I have been fortunate enough to share many precious hours with Hilda and her family talking about her extraordinary life. Hilda has the universal respect and the ability to instantly create an atmosphere of peace and civility in whatever environment she is in. She is a woman that everyone wants to behave well for, not because people are afraid of her, but because she commands total respect. She is a woman of genuine authority.
When I read Very Big Journey, I was very moved when I thought about a little girl only six years old taken away from her family and kin on the back of a horse all the way into Darwin to begin a new life of a very different kind at the Kahlin Compound. Hilda made lifelong friends with the children she met at the Kahlin Compound. They became her family. These were women who were also to become great leaders and spokespeople for their communities and we still mourn the loss of Hilda’s great friend and ‘sister’, Daisy Ruddock. Years later, Hilda’s and Daisy’s stories would become part of a record breaking travelling exhibition by the National Archives called Between Two Worlds.
Hilda’s husband and father of her children, the young and handsome, Bill Muir, had a distinguished war record, seeing active combat in the Pacific theatre at Papua New Guinea and Milne Bay. His death during Cyclone Tracy while protecting his family, and of Hilda’s loss, is one of the saddest parts of the book. Hilda, herself injured and quickly evacuated to Brisbane, only heard of his death days later, was robbed of a funeral or even a chance to say goodbye to the man who died looking after his wife and family.
Hilda has risen above the many obstacles she has faced because she is an extraordinary woman. Much of her strength has come because she has been strong for her family. At the launch of the book, it was clear to see just how much of a success Hilda’s life has been, not just in the strength and contribution of the woman who has given so much back to her country, but in her wonderful and living legacy of children and grandchildren. Hilda said:
It’s important for my future generations to know who they are and where they come from, to be proud of their
Aboriginal heritage and to be strong for their country.
As everyone who knows Aunty Hilda knows, Australia Day is also her birthday. This was the birthday ‘given’ to her by those who took her away from her family and who had to assign her a birth date. Hilda is never bitter, but she does not describe any birthday celebrations or gifts that she received as a child. The birth date alone was given to her, a birthday for a true Australian.
Hilda’s story is one of hope, courage and optimism; of battling against the odds and winning; and letting all of us win because she has let us share a part of her extraordinary life. I urge all my friends and colleagues across both sides of the Chamber to read this wonderful book by an extraordinary woman. It is the story of a true Territorian and also a woman that I am proud to call a friend.
I would also like to talk about a wonderful exhibition of ceramics, Turning Japanese, by Cecily Willis. I attended the opening on Friday evening, 23 January at Territory Craft and Bullocky Point. The exhibition, Turning Japanese, was the culmination of a six-month program as Artist in Residence at Territory Craft. The Artist in Resident program has been running at Territory Craft for more than 20 years. The residency supports local artists by providing fully equipped workshop space at no cost to them. The aim of the program is to provide an opportunity for artists to work on their craft full-time and to develop professional marketing of their work.
Cecily has lived and worked in the Territory for the past 23 years, both in the bush and in the town. She was, for 14 years, educator at Maningrida Community Education Centre, and is currently on a year’s long service leave from the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and has clearly made the most of her time as an Artist in Residence. The exhibition represents six months work concentrating on earthenware vessels. The craft reflected a strong Japanese influence and included sushi dishes, Japanese-style teapots and tea cups, chopstick holders and blossom jars, among many other things.
I thank Leonie McNally, the executive director of Territory Craft, and Jon Firth, Chair of the Territory Craft Committee, for all the terrific work they do at Territory Craft, and especially with the Artist in Residence program. Congratulations to Cecily Willis for the wonderful exhibition and the enormous contribution she and other Territory artists give to us all through their commitment and vision. One thing that was quite extraordinary about Cecily’s exhibition was that it mostly sold out on that night.
I also had the pleasure last week to officially launch an outstanding project with major benefits for our community - the St John Ambulance ‘Project Heartstart Australia’. This program involves the purchase and distribution of around 60 public access defibrillators - otherwise known as PADs - across the country over the next year.
Sudden cardiac arrest is the most common mode of death in our country. Much to my surprise and I am sure to many others, sudden cardiac arrest claims the lives of 30 000 Australians every year. Such an arrest can happen anywhere to anyone - young or old, man or woman – and often without warning. About 75% of arrests occur away from hospitals and the survival rate for such incidents is just 5%. When someone collapses in a public place as a result of an arrest, immediate action is required because time is of the essence. Lives can be saved, however, if we follow what St John calls ‘a chain of survival’. The chain starts with people simply recognising that a person has had an arrest and then calling for an ambulance. The next step is someone carrying out mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and cardiac compression. The next in the chain – and this is where the project comes in - is the application of a PAD or public access defibrillator. The final link is the arrival of ambulance officers to deliver advance care and transport the cardiac arrest victim to hospital.
St John believes defibrillation is the only real chance people will have of surviving an arrest outside hospital. They know that every minute defibrillation is delayed, a person loses 10% of his or her chance to live. If 10 minutes passes without action, there is virtually no chance at all. Unfortunately, we all accept that we cannot have PADs everywhere. However, if we can make them readily available in as many public places as possible, they will have the potential to make a tangible difference to survival rates. Therefore, with the generous support of Insurance Australia Group represented in the Territory by CGU Insurance, St John has instigated Project Heartstart Australia. Thanks to the project, it has planned that the first three units will be located here in Parliament House, one at the Nightcliff Shopping Centre, and one at Uluru. I am very impressed with the scale of the project. I commend St John for working closely with sponsors, the health sectors, and the ‘hosts’ of these vital machines.
At the launch, I was able to see a demonstration of the use of these PADs. The machine directs the member of public through very clear step-by-step messages on how to apply and use the defibrillators. Literally so simple, this machine will be able to be used by even children who are in the frightening position of witnessing the sudden cardiac arrest of a loved one.
St John continues to play a major role in educating our community with the messages of health and safety. Their first aid courses are available to businesses, schools and individuals. Attendees learn the value of first aid, and the skills needed to apply primary assistance in emergency situations. I pass on my thanks and thanks of all Territorians to St John, the officers and all the volunteers, who so generously give of their time and energy to support public events and activities in the Territory.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to give a report of my overseas trip taken in accordance with the Remuneration Tribunal Determination that applies to members of parliament. Whilst there is no specific guide as to how detailed a report is supposed to be, what I propose to do is talk about some of the aspects of information I gleaned from the trip tonight, over the course of weeks or months or if not, leading up to the election. There will be a number of other initiatives and ideas which I picked up from overseas which may make its way into some of the planks and policies of this government.
There is no doubt that democracy is constantly subject to the strings, slings and arrows of political expediency. There is no doubt that weak politicians on both sides of any political divide have a tendency to trump what would have been good for our community with politics. There are many examples of that in Europe, and indeed, closer to home. Territorians have seen the Martin Labor government do exactly that: that is abuse the fundamental trust which has been placed in a government by the people.
As a young man, born in the Northern Territory, an indigenous person - that is me, born here - and having the opportunity to travel to Europe for the first time, it was a privilege, and of course on to America, I took the opportunity to have a close look at first-hand at some of the old democracies of the world, and took that privilege to try to broaden my mind to how people live, some of the problems that exist over there, and for what it is worth, bring back some of that information to our home in the Northern Territory. Unlike the Labor Chief Minister, the member for Fannie Bay, whom I understand traveled to Greece twice in under three years, I did my best to visit as many places as possible, and to learn from some of the mistakes they have made and try to get a clearer picture of what we are doing and where we are going, and what I can do to hopefully make a difference.
In London, I had several meetings with businessmen and women, and the chairman of, I think I have this right, the Guild of World Traders. It had a particularly long title but I am pretty sure it is the name of his organisation. Anyway, he was the chairman, and he was also a senior partner of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a large international firm of accountants. He was actually offered the job of Auditor-General of Great Britain but he knocked it back, telling me that the private sector pays better. He talked about world trade, and it was amazing. I actually spent a day and a half with him. He has a villa in the countryside and he invited Vanessa and I to spend a day with him. He talked about world trade and he talked about exporting low-tech labour intensive jobs to Third World countries and developing countries. He attempted to persuade me that that would keep a western democracy’s inflation down, and it would force jobs and industry markets in that country, like Australia, to move into the more high-tech areas. He explained in detail why the UK economy was doing so well and why France and Germany were really floundering.
There was an issue he spoke about. In Germany, there is a situation which there has been some publicity about in Australia. We talk about the ageing population. Before I left, I remember reading that there were some concerns that with the ageing population in 20 years to 30 years time, whilst currently there are four million active, productive taxpayers supporting about two million people who have worked hard all their lives and are receiving superannuation and other benefits, in 20 years or 30 years time, that is going to change. There are going to be two million working middle aged people supporting about four million seniors.
In Germany it seems there is political uproar at the moment. There was a headline which I actually took out of the paper. This young man received a lot of publicity. He is a young man and it seems that he is heading down the road to a political career, but he talked about quite disturbing things: old people were soaking up Germany’s financial resources with lavish pensions and gold plated healthcare plans. Such largesse, he said, came at the expense of young Germans, whom he warned would be strangled by the burden of supporting an ever larger population of retirees. This person was travelling around Germany and articulating his political views and was getting an enormous amount of air play, support and it was a real concern.
From Australia’s perspective, we really have to start looking at ways and mechanisms to prevent this type of reaction from possibly the next generation of Australians who feel that they have been lumbered with the cost of supporting people like me and I suspect most of the people in this Chamber.
I then travelled to Spain. It was my next port of call where I met up with another group of business people and a representative from the Bank of New York. He actually flew to Barcelona to meet me. He is a friend of mine, a bloke I have known for some time and is always full of great ideas. I know I only have 15 minutes, but his view on the world and where Australia should be going would take hours to articulate to honourable members. I am sure they will find it fascinating. I suspect most of it will go over the heads of members opposite.
I went on a fantastic coastal tour of the north-west region of Spain, finishing at a place called San Sebastin. I specifically went to a number of coastal areas that were once mangroves. There seems little doubt that as our population grows, the coastal areas of the Northern Territory will be subject to incredible and intense pressure. Mangrove preservation simply is not an issue on the political landscape in Spain. There are just so many people, if they can build on it, they will and they do it well. I am firmly of the view that we have to do a little better than that to preserve our natural heritage, our environment, not only, of course - and it has been said by members of both sides of the House - for the current generation but for future generations of Territorians.
One of the solutions that one of the people I was travelling with proffered to me was that if they could do things again, they would clearly delineate the line between what is a park in terms of mangroves and the foreshore and what is capable of being developed. This is exactly what we are doing here. He did not know what the Territory situation was. We have this zoning of Open Conservation and the powers under the Planning Act mean that the minister, when he is besieged by developers, all with visionary wealth-creating projects, ‘Just that tiny bit of foreshore’, and they just want to do this, which the government of the day will think that is pretty good, I will get a few votes if I can get this big project up. Of course, they do. These good-hearted developers put pressure on the political party of the day and that political party buckles to that pressure.
The lesson was - for what it is worth – is draw a line in the sand now and create some certainty because, if you do not what happens in Spain is what will happen here. I see the member for Karama is agreeing with me.
Ms Lawrie: No, I am not. No, I am bewildered by your ignorance. There is a harbour plan of management out.
Mr Wood: Okay, that is not protecting anything. That is a book.
Mr MALEY: It is disturbing that the member for Karama has no grasp of this and is not interested in listening to what is happening in other places.
The lesson was, I suppose, for someone objectively looking at what has happened in that particular part of the Iberian Peninsula was: develop it or protect it properly. However, any of these measures where ‘Oh well, we have to be flexible and it is subject to the ministerial consent overriding the particular zoning ultimately will not protect you. But it is your Northern Territory, you do what you think fit’.
Anyway, the other thing which seemed fairly obvious and what we are missing in the Northern Territory is some sort of coastal road network. It seems that was one of the first things, from an infrastructure perspective, that many of the countries in Europe have done. Granted, of course, that populations are larger but, from a government capital expenditure perspective, these large coastal roads were a priority. Then from those, of course, other small industries began to flourish.
There are a number of other good ideas and things which I will just save for another time. Ultimately there are some great ideas which I hope I can persuade my colleagues to incorporate into the new vision for the Territory which the CLP will offer to the people of the Territory just prior to the next election.
I then travelled to the United States. I went to the International Game Fishing Association’s home in Miami, Florida. We were on our way from Fort Lauderdale to Key West and we stopped there. By this stage, Vanessa and I both had dreadful colds. We were a bit crook, so we were happy to divert our plan. We were originally scheduled to go to Denver then Florida, and we stayed there for a few days before going to Mexico. I have a whole heap of material for those who are interested in the International Game Fishing Association. Probably most importantly, their education and youth program guide, Conservation for Education with a whole raft of really good, proactive, positive measures which politicians may not be interested in. I suspect the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory would be keen to have a look at it.
I travelled to Mexico. Aboriginal issues are something which I am acutely aware of, being a person who was born and bred here. I have said before that the indigenous Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal divide was not such a big deal in my life until coming to this place, where suddenly it is: ‘My God, you are indigenous or you are non-indigenous’. The whole terminology has, I suppose, opened my eyes a little more to it the way that people like the members of the Labor Party - particularly those members of the Labor Party from down south - view us. However, I went there to see black, white, coloured - all these divides which the Labor Party constantly go on about. What happened in Mexico is that there were an indigenous people and then the Spanish came. There are a lot more numbers but there is industry and things happening. It is a third world country, but they have gone through many of the aches and pains which the Northern Territory is constantly going through, and is currently going through.
I had an opportunity to meet a number of people. To cut a long story short, it seems that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act really is a blight on the Northern Territory and it damages the very people it strives to protect. No people on earth have ever flourished economically or socially without a secure land tenure system. I am simply not prepared to sit by and watch a group of Territorians, many of whom are my friends from Taminmin High School, get annihilated both economically and socially by this damaging system. I am going to become a little more proactive on this issue and I have some wonderful ideas from Mexico. I sat down with a group of indigenous people, people of Mayan descent and also some people who said they were of, I cannot remember the term, but effectively Inca - the Spanish term sounds a lot better and rolls off the tongue. I explained to them the situation and they said the message is really this, to our Aboriginal people, if you are going to put people in different categories: people must take responsibility for everything that occurs in their lives, blame nobody but yourself, get on with it. You should not put people in different categories, and you should not put people in a situation where they cannot have secure land tenure and they cannot buy and sell ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The member’s time has expired.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, you time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to welcome to the area of Karama and Malak some very kind hearted, worthy people whom I believe will be amongst the leaders in our community. I welcome Bruce and Julie Southwell.
Bruce Southwell has been commissioned as the new rector at St James Anglican Church. On 30 January, I had the honour of attending the evening church service at St James to witness the commissioning of Bruce Southwell who has volunteered to come here from Sydney. Bruce and I have met and discussed just what type of community he has entered into. He is a terrific theologian who is very interested in multiculturalism, and I believe very much will suit the community of Karama and Malak. He has shown an interest in extending outside the church walls and doing some very good pastoral care throughout the community. I know that there is a great deal of anticipation about the leadership he will provide to the Anglican members of our community.
They have been looking forward to a permanent rector for some years now, given that the position was vacant and very ably filled on a rotational basis by priests of the Anglican faith who have other parishes. It was a very lovely and moving service that I witnessed of commissioning the new rector, which was overseen by Bishop Philip Freier. There was a very large congregation there that evening and I had the opportunity after the formalities to share some good conversations with many members of the St James Anglican community, and they are very hard working and committed members of our community. I look forward to working with Mr Southwell and his lovely wife, Julie, in the pastoral care of members of Karama and Malak.
I also rise this evening to discuss the really enjoyable launch held by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory at the Leanyer Recreation Park on Australia Day. I estimate a few thousand people attended Leanyer Recreation Park that day and it was an absolutely brilliant occasion. It was heartening to see so many families from all backgrounds from throughout Darwin and Palmerston attending this new recreation facility. The feedback that I was receiving was that it was what Darwin and Palmerston residents needed. I would have to say that the comment has been that people want to see one in Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. It is terrific to see the establishment of a water recreation park and to really put to bed the doubters who said it could not happen and that it would not be a success. As chair of the taskforce, who saw the project through its various stages, I acknowledge the input that was provided by the community-based taskforce.
I acknowledge the work done by my colleague, the member for Sanderson. He put a great deal of effort into canvassing opinions and discussing with people in his electorate of Sanderson just what sort of recreation facility they would like to see. I know that, as a parent, he had a very good view on the needs of families and very actively participated in the taskforce. I acknowledge the work of Mr Henry Gray, the principal of Leanyer of Primary School. He is a well known member of the community and was able to discuss with parents, as well as children, the views they held about what type of facility they would like to see. Henry was a very fine participant in task force meetings.
We had a young representative on the task force, a teenager, Tyce Clee, who at the time was at Sanderson High School. This year he is doing matriculation at Casuarina Senior College. It was a wonderful experience to see Tyce grow in confidence, and as each meeting of the task force went on, really increase the input he provided into expressing the views of youth about what sort of facilities they wanted. Also in that vein, I acknowledge the good work done by Ben Hall, who represented the skate boarders from the Darwin Skate Boarders Association. Ben is a very forthright young man and had very clear views on what sorts of needs the skate boarders had. I acknowledge that the additional skate park facilities down there are due largely to the excellent efforts of Ben Hall.
No task force would have been complete without the input of the Royal Lifesaving Society, particularly when it comes to water-based recreation. I acknowledge the very fine work provided by Sue Parry and Kath Midgely, who were not only able to point out the various safety aspects that we had to consider, but also some of the practical use that such a water park could afford.
It was really a wonderful moment to be standing there at the Australia Day function next to Sue as we looked around, and there were thousands of people there. Sue had a broad smile on her face and said that it was a fantastic facility. She had gone around, as thorough as we know Sue Parry is, and checked exactly how the life guards were operating, where the life guards were positioned, what sort of facilities were available, and indeed, Parks and Wildlife had commissioned from her an audit of the facility just to check the fine details to make sure it was up to scratch. I can report that that audit was a very positive response and feedback to the department.
I also acknowledge the input provided by Kidsafe NT. Their representatives were Felicity Creed and Saskia Strange. They both reiterated time and time again at the task force level that there is no point in creating a recreational facility that is one dimensional, that is that there is only one activity, and the final plans that were put to the department really echoed their sentiment. There were a range of activities proposed from the water park facilities through to the roller blade and walking/cycling track, the basketball/netball court, the add-on skateboard, and the all-abilities playground. It really was about creating a variety of activities for a variety of demographic groups. I thank them for their wisdom. I also thank particularly Saskia Strange for the input she provided in identifying what sorts of equipment is appropriate for the all-abilities playground. She was very useful in that process in terms of being able to say, ‘Look, avoid this sort of equipment even though it is available by suppliers, for these reasons’. She really provided a great deal of advice in that respect.
Darwin City Council aldermen showed interest and at various stages participated in the task force. I acknowledge the efforts provided by Jo Sangster, Cecil Black, and John Bailey.
No project like this could have succeeded without the tremendous effort of the staff of the department involved. I thank in particular Dave West from Parks and Wildlife, who showed absolute professionalism and clarity of advice right throughout the process as well as a capacity for a lot of hard work. Jaqui Hindmarsh was, at the outset, quite a quiet participant. She blossomed in the task force role and became a very valuable member. Roland did some tremendous designs in terms of the way the concept would look and I acknowledge the great work that Roland from Parks and Wildlife did as well.
Seeing it through the construction phase was the Project Manager, Lyle Campbell, from DIPE. Lyle has a tremendous energy and drive and took on an almost impossible task in terms of time frame to deliver the project. It was an enormous project, but he managed to break it down into enough components to ensure that a good number of tenders went out to local business. He really drove home the government’s intention of delivering every opportunity to local businesses to pick up contracts in the construction project. He was ably assisted by Lindsay Moncrieth from GH & D Design. Watching those two professionals work was truly inspirational, and I thank them for their incredible dedication to the project and to delivering it through every facet.
At the end of the project, of course, came technical aspects of ensuring that its launch was successful, and the promotion was there. I acknowledge the work done by the PR women, Karen and Hilary. On the day, I lost count of the hundreds of balloons we blew up and tied up together, and handed out to the very willing children.
PCYC, the Police Citizens Youth Club, stepped in and put their hand up to run the kiosk. They are making a very tidy profit in running that very popular kiosk. I acknowledge the work done by the PCYC volunteers to step up like that and seize the opportunity to make money for a very worthy organisation.
None of this would have been possible without the support and the vision of the Chief Minister. I acknowledge that and thank her very much for the incredible support she has provided right throughout the process, from its vision and inception in opposition through to delivery of a wonderful facility that we have now. I acknowledge the fantastic efforts of the then minister Kon Vatskalis. At no stage did he say no. He was very open to the project. He was open to the community-based task force way of approaching it. He showed selflessness as a minister in being able to hand over a very rewarding project to a community process. I acknowledge the effort and energy that he put in as minister to ensuring the project’s success.
I acknowledge support from minister Henderson as well. Again, he showed a great deal of support for the project. At every stage, whenever we needed to consider aspects of its expansion, he was a very supportive minister. I also acknowledge the current minister, minister Burns. He has been very hands-on since taking over the portfolio in ensuring that all facilities are functioning well. There is a really good plan of management in place. The feedback I have been getting from residents I have spoken to at the park - because I confess I am also a consumer. I go there with my children and sit in the shallows of the water area and watch them play with delight - so I have the opportunity regularly to canvass people who are there and check their views on it. People have said that they are very pleased to see what a well managed, well supervised and very clean and friendly facility it is.
An incredible number of people go there. On some occasions, there could be 400 people in one day going through that facility. It is quite interesting to see that the supervision provided by both the Parks and Wildlife rangers, as well as that provided by the lifesavers, is having the effect of making sure that it is a friendly, safe, family environment that people of all ages can enjoy. It is wonderful to see the indigenous Territorian families playing alongside the non-indigenous Territorian families, the African kids who have come and settled in our community, and the Asian families who are now very much a part of the Territory demographic. They are all there and it truly is a very multicultural facility. It is very much a credit to the Martin Labor government.
It was a project that some people thought was not worthwhile. There have been comments from the opposition denigrating it. I encourage members opposite to go to the facility and have a look. In speaking to police, they say that there were fewer problems from youth in the northern suburbs of Darwin throughout the school holiday period. I have to say, as the member for Karama, I noticed the Karama Shopping Centre was incredibly quiet for a school holiday period. If you went to that facility, the kids were playing and behaving themselves. It really goes to show the wisdom of the saying: if you keep the kids active, they will pretty well keep out of trouble.
It is great to see that the Youth Beat youth workers are getting there and mingling with the kids, just as we have had tremendous support from the bicycle patrol police who get down there and mingle and talk with local residents. It truly is a fully integrated community facility. I know it has a very promising future. I congratulate everyone for the hard work and the great deal of effort they put in to make sure that this project was completed in time for parents and families to enjoy it throughout the school holidays - some would say too long school holiday period, but they knew their kids were certainly enjoying themselves and having a lot of fun.
I certainly hope that it will be one of those facilities that continues to improve over time with further injection of facilities into there. It has a scope for expansion and improvement and I know the community is looking forward to seeing it grow and become even better. Certainly the feedback I have received has been overwhelming, people love it.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wanted to raise tonight an issue that should be considered important by all members of the Chamber. It centres around a headline that appeared in the Northern Territory News yesterday. No doubt all members are aware of it; the headline reads: Underage girls sterilised, implants to stop teen pregnancies. The headline is alarming but I would like to assure members that I have made some phone calls, I made some inquiries, and on the advice that I have received, it is fair to say that the headline does not accurately describe the situation. It has been suggested to me that the headline was a little misleading.
Nevertheless, the story is an alarming one and it is appropriate that I raise my concerns in the Chamber tonight, especially in light of the fact that we have had one or two, depending on your interpretation, health statements from two health ministers. It is also appropriate that at this juncture I touch upon some of the matters mentioned by both health ministers so that the points that I propose to make in relation to the article in the Northern Territory News has some sort of relevant and meaningful context.
I note that the Minister for Health said that he will, as minister, strengthen families and communities. He said, and I quote:
- We have many reasons to focus on giving the children of the Territory the best start in life possible.
He mentions the importance of treating sexually transmitted diseases which he admits is an area that requires:
… sustained attention over the next few years.
I note that the Minister for Family and Community Services in her speech referred to, amongst many other things, the redrafting of the Community Welfare Act, a bill I might say that I am looking forward to very much. I simply ask that the new minister, like her predecessor, note my special interest in this area. The new minister referred to the need to protect our children. Few of us would argue that that should be a top priority for all governments.
It is against that backdrop that I now return to the story in the Northern Territory News. I wondered why it was, when I was reading the statements of both health ministers, that neither minister used the opportunity to comment on this story, and in addition, I wondered why it was that there was no ministerial report on the matter. I was rather hoping that there might be a government question and answer in Question Time about the issues raised in that story. I was disappointed that this serious issue has not been mentioned by anyone in this parliament today, certainly given the currency of the story and the fact that it appeared yesterday. One could be forgiven for thinking that this issue is not considered serious enough to warrant any comment by anyone in this Chamber and in particular from government, further, and more particularly, two new government health ministers.
Having said that however, I do feel as though the new Minister for Family and Community Services does have an interest in, and a commitment to, issues involving young women, both in indigenous and non-indigenous. I would like to think and rather hope that she is concerned about this story in much the same way that I am. I flag now that I would like a briefing with the minister and departmental staff so that I can be informed on government’s position on this matter. Let us be clear what the issue is: the issue is young girls, 14 and 15 years, and probably even younger, undergoing a medical procedure, namely an Implanon implant, often without their parent’s consent. As I understand it, it is a small rod that is inserted into the girl’s arm. Therefore, it is a medical procedure. Some, of course, will argue that this is merely a form of contraception, and like the contraceptive pill, should be provided to young girls who often do not want their parents to know that they are sexually active. There is, however, another view and that is it is a medical procedure and parental consent should be obtained. No doubt, some would argue that the provision of this device is a good thing, simply because it is a contraceptive device and that young women in particular should be encouraged to avail themselves of it. However, in the case of this particular device, questions do arise about what the lesser evil is.
I raise in particular the question of the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Presumably this device promotes safe sex for girls on the basis that they will not get pregnant. What about STDs? I would like to know what the minister’s view is, certainly both ministers, in particular the Minister for Family and Community Services. I would like to know what does government, or the minister, think about young girls having this medical procedure without their parent’s consent. I also would like to know whether there are any protocols in existence to assist health workers to balance what might be described as often competing interests about the rights of young people on the one hand to be sexually active, and then on the other for adults to have some say, especially when they are very young and under age, in how these girls can conduct their lives especially when it comes to health issues.
There was a reference in the story to a grandmother who took two of her grandchildren to a doctor and told the doctor to put in this device, because, and I quote from the story: ‘… otherwise they’ll be pregnant before too long’. I ask the question, by what authority can the grandmother give those instructions to the doctor and whether the minister thinks this is reasonable? Only a couple of months ago, members will recall that we were in this Chamber talking about, amongst other things, human rights, the matter not regarded as terribly important by the member for Nelson, but I digress. I wonder what the minister thinks about this issue and the details of this story from the human rights perspective, and the ability of the child to consent to a medical treatment or medical procedure. The minister talked about the rights of the child in the context of the Community Welfare Act and I ask the question, can a child give, in this case, her consent, and where are the rights of the child on this matter? I am compelled to ask whether the minister is concerned about what I would suggest is a very real possibility of some of those under age girls, not just having sex with boys of their own age, but in particular much older boys and, in some cases, men.
I invite the minister to provide a statement, or perhaps a ministerial report on this issue, or perhaps even have a question asked and answered during the course of the sittings. I am well aware that some of these issues are very sensitive. I have simply raised them. I make no judgment about any of them, and I do not give, at this stage, a particular point of view. I would certainly like more information. It is very important and I would especially like to know what the minister’s view is on some of these very important issues, and indeed what some of the responses would be. If after the conclusion of these sittings, no statement of any form is provided, I will seek a briefing.
However, I would hope that during this sittings the issue is raised by government and the minister. I raise these issues for the consideration of the minister and I also raise these issues because I think I should. These issues should be raised. Whilst the heading in the NT News I am told was misleading, the fact is that there are issues in this story that are concerning. The issues are sensitive, and a sensible response needs to be taken to them. I am very concerned that no one in government raised this matter during the course of today, and I respectfully ask the government to do so over the next week-and-a-half.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am not sure why the member for Araluen mentioned my name. I actually think that the issue she has raised is an important issue. It is a pity that some of us could not speak on the debate because we limited the number of speakers. The issue she has raised is important. I support her asking for answers from the government on those important issues. I also have some concerns about some of the issues on page 3, the morning after pill. I have spoken to a person representing the AMA who definitely has concerns about the handing out of that pill without doctors’ prescriptions. It is an important issue. However, I am not going to speak on that tonight.
I am speaking on something completely different and that is bottled water, which is a long way away from that previous subject. Its other heading is ‘Why get something free when I can pay for it?’ This evening I talk about a growing environment problem that the Northern Territory government and community appear to be ignoring, and that is bottled water. When did water go from being an essential to human life to a commercial beverage? Bottled water is one of the fastest growing sectors of the beverage industry, and what a con it has been for most of us: getting us to pay up to $3 a litre - that is more than three times the cost of petrol - for something that we can get for nothing out of a tap. In Alice Springs, there is a company bottling the town’s water out of a tap and selling it back to the Alice Springs consumer.
I have been spurred on to say something about the subject by a report from the Chief Minister in the sittings last August, on the BassintheGrass concerts. She told the Legislative Assembly that Coca-Cola had provided 14 000 free bottles of bottled water for these two concerts. I supported those concerts but I do not support that aspect of it. Why should a government fund a concert for young people to promote consumerism and waste? What happened to those 14 000 empty containers? They certainly were not collected and redeemed at collection depots, because we do not have container deposit legislation. Did anyone in Darwin collect them and take them to Waste Masters, or are they all in landfill at the Shoal Bay Dump? Did the government insist that Coca-Cola take away the empty containers and see that they were recycled as part of its new litter abatement recycling program? Or were these 14 000 empty bottles left to the community to deal with, as usual?
Over the past 100 years, the Australian taxpayer has funded an efficient infrastructure to collect, purify and deliver water to our houses, workplaces and parks. Each of us, and our parents and grandparents, have paid for that efficient and effective water delivery system. Yet marketers have convinced us to buy water in bottles, an extremely inefficient and expensive delivery system that adds to an already huge litter problem. Companies are using a free resource that belongs to all people and making money out of it. It is a great business idea, isn’t it? We are mug consumers. Coca-Cola pays a New South Wales utility $1.34 a megalitre for its spring water. That is $1.34 for a million litres of water, and we pay $1.34 for less than one litre. It is a business that should not be encouraged in Australia unless the hundreds of thousands of plastic bottles are recycled.
What is the problem? Originally, water was bottled by companies promoting the beneficial properties of minerals and spring water, and that has been going on for decades. Now its growth appears to be linked to a push towards healthier consumption: drinking bottled water instead of sugar-based soft drinks or fattening flavoured milk. No one is arguing that water is not good for you or, if it is not actually good for you, it does no harm. However, why are we paying for it in bottles? Some people might claim that the bottled water is cleaner and more pure than tap water, but what proof do we have of this? In fact, bottled water may be less clean than tap water because it is not regulated and tested in a way that tap water is by utilities such as the Power and Water Corporation. Bottled water is not regulated but tap water is. The Australian drinking water guidelines do not apply to bottled water. There is a voluntary code for the production of bottled water, nothing mandatory.
Other people might like its convenience, and here I concede they have a point. However, there has been a lack of action from local government councils and government. Where are the bubblers? How long is it since local governments installed new bubblers? If you go to the malls in Darwin or Alice Springs, can you get free water from conveniently placed bubblers or taps? I should also say how many times have you seen a bubbler in a shopping centre? They remove them or they put them in such a place you cannot find them. Of course, that is done on purpose to make you buy bottled water.
So, what are the trends? Recently, the environment magazine, emagazine, did a feature on bottled water in the United States, and I am sure that all the trends identified in that article will emerge here. There are pubs and bars where you cannot get or drink tap water. You have to buy bottled water. There are now bottled water bars. Water varieties are grouped. There is spring, mineral, purified, distilled, carbonated, oxygenated, caffeinated, vitamin rich, lemon water, sports waters, and fitness water. Forty per cent of bottled water begins life as tap water. In taste tests consumers cannot tell the difference between tap and bottled water. Bottled water is unregulated. Tap water has to be tested. Several studies have found contaminants including arsenic and chlorine, lead and fluoride. Consumers are being taken in by words such as pure, pristine, natural, healthy, and brand names such as ‘Everest’ which is bottled in Texas. There is no proof that bottled water is safer or cleaner or healthier.
Another problem is that Australian doctors have predicted the trend towards bottled water will reverse the good done by fluorination of water during the past three decades. They are predicting a possible decline in dental health in Australia. In April this year, Choice Magazine said that bottled water is often treated by a process called ozonation which kills any lurking bacteria, but it quotes a recent preliminary study which found that ozonation can leave traces of bromate which can cause negative side effects from nausea and diarrhoea to kidney failure. There is no limit in Australia on the amount of bromate which can appear in bottled water.
The size of the problem: the bottled water industry is worth $US35bn a year world wide. It is growing 10% a year and, in May 2002, the polling company, AC Nielsen, found that in the Asia Pacific region, which includes Australia, bottled water was the single fastest growing product of all food and beverage categories. It is estimated that Australia spends $300m a year on bottled water. In the United States, the Container Recycling Institute, a non-profit group which studies container sales and recycling trends, has found that the plastic bottle has tripled in the past eight years, and a good part of that waste has been from bottled water containers. There is no reason to believe that this trend will be any different in Australia.
A worrying trend in the US has been the decline in recycling rates for PET plastic bottles in states that have no container deposits. In 1995, almost 40% of PET containers were recycled. In 2002, the rate was down to 20%. This must mean that collectors are not getting enough money per kilogram for delivering used bottles to recycling plants and when this happens, you have two options: introduce CDL or reduce the number of bottles. One way of reducing the number of empties would be discouraging the consumption of bottled water.
Consumerism and marketing gone made: as one recent editorial said, ‘We are urged to buy one liquid we cannot live without from private companies which dress up bottles with pretty nature scenes to contradict the true environmental impact of their enterprise’. Look at the names: Deep Spring, Marble Hill, Mt Lofty, Mt Franklin, Peaks Ridge, King Island and Misty Mountain. I could probably name a couple of others around our way. The names suggest clean and clear, but look closely at the labels on some of them. Deep Spring Natural Mineral Water is bottled by Coca-Cola. The label does not say where the spring is or where the water comes from. The Territory’s own distilled water is bottled in the suburbs of Darwin. There is no claim to it being spring water, so I presume it is tap water that has been treated with ultraviolet light. Tumbling Waters water comes from Berry Springs out of a bore, and I think Litchfield Springs comes from the old police horse paddock on the corner of the Stuart Highway and Tivendale Road.
The K9 water company from California sells bottled water for dogs – yes, water fortified with vitamins and flavoured with beef, liver, chicken or lamb. Recently, an Australian entrepreneur introduced flavoured water for the dogs of Sydney.
A litre of bottled water from the supermarket can cost more than a dollar. It cost less than 0.1 of 1% to fill a litre bottle at the kitchen tap. The bottled water is a thousand times more expensive than tap water. People cannot live without water and in the past it has kept us alive for virtually nothing. But now, if you insist on bottled water and you want to drink it all the time, it will cost you up to $8 a day for the recommended daily intake. It is an expensive fad. If there is a case for bottling water, surely it should be bottled water for people in developing countries who have no access to safe drinking water.
In most cases, bottled water is a waste of money and the bottles damage the environment. Fuel is wasted in transporting bottles of water around the country and providing power to the bottling plants. The manufacturer of PET bottles generates toxic emissions. The PET bottle that is not recycled takes 1000 years to biodegrade. The beverage industry is making a profit and a litter problem out of bottling something in Australia that costs almost nothing.
I ask the Chief Minister and the government to consider this concept, that the beverage industry is only making a profit and creating a large litter problem, before they support free bottled water at the next function. Certainly, it is a great alternative to alcohol and soft drink, but people should be encouraged to drink free tap water. What we need is more bubblers or a water truck with recyclable cups.
In summary, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, one could ask: what are the arguments for bottled water? It is healthy, it is safe, it is pure – and that can be arguable – it is a good alternative to alcohol and sugar laden soft drinks, it is convenient and portable and it is fashionable. I would say that is a pretty major reason why a lot of people drink bottled water.
But why not use bottled water? It is outrageously expensive because water is almost free from the tap. The containers are a major litter and resource use problem and Australia has some of the best drinking water out of the tap in the world with few additives. You would have to say that Darwin’s water, and that has been recognised, and some of the water in the Top End is recognised as the best water in Australia.
One has to ask: are we being conned and are we just creating a bigger litter problem? If the government accepts the free market then perhaps it accepts responsibility for the amount of litter that these bottles are producing and it starts to put some real effort into thinking about the introduction of container deposit legislation.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to advise the Assembly of the retirement of Mrs Kay Pisani, an A04 Program Coordinator, Entry Levels Programs Unit with Recruitment Services, who retired from the Northern Territory Public Service on Friday, 6 February 2004 after 16 years and four months service.
Mrs Pisani joined the Northern Territory Public Sector as a keyboard operator on 14 September 1987 with the Department of Mines and Energy in Alice Springs and was permanently appointed on 18 January 1988. In October 1989, she transferred to Darwin. In December 1989, Kay began a career in Recruitment with the Department of Mines and Energy and in March 1994 was promoted to Recruitment Officer within the same department. During her time with Mines and Energy, Kay began her interest in the apprenticeship program, an area in which she continued until her retirement.
In 1998, Kay transferred to the Department of Transport and Works where she was responsible for overseeing 12 apprentices and then transferred to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, where the unit was responsible for the management of some 170 apprentices across the service.
In April 2002, the Early Careers Unit and Kay transferred to DCIS where Kay’s wealth of experience and intimate knowledge of the apprenticeship program and all apprenticeships was greatly valued by DCIS. Kay’s dedication to the apprenticeship program is a credit to her and her knowledge in this area will be sorely missed.
I understand that a plaque to acknowledge her service was presented to Mrs Pisani at the apprenticeship graduation ceremony on 4 February 2004. I also understand a small workplace farewell function was held at the Darwin Plaza on 6 February 2004, and that everyone thoroughly enjoyed themselves. Mrs Kay Pisani will be sorely missed.
I would now like to congratulate the AFL/NTFL and the Minister for Sport and Recreation, the Honourable John Ah Kit. The recent game held between the Western Bulldogs and the NTFL Representatives was a fantastic spectacle for all those who attended. It was a typical Wet Season night, balmy, with rain coming down in buckets. However, it was still well attended, with 7000 Territorians attending, just going to show that the most popular sport still to this day and in the past and no doubt into the future, is Australian Rules Football. I recognise the NTFL representative team coached by Damian Hale, the current premiership coach of the St Mary’s Football Club. Damian has been a personal friend of mine for a number of years, having played rugby league with him and against him in Aussie Rules. He has done a fantastic job at his home club, St Mary’s Football Club. I am sure Vic Ludwig and all the supporters at St Mary’s Football Club are very proud of what he has been able to achieve in a short time. He did a fantastic job of preparing the NTFL representative team.
The captain of the team was Shannon Motlop, from the well-known Territorian sporting family. The Motlops have been very successful in all sports that they put their hand to, in particular Rugby League and Australian Rules Football, Shannon also being a member of the victorious Kangaroos 1996 Premiership Team in the AFL. He has recently joined the Wanderers Football Club and is assisting them head towards, I believe, a possible grand final appearance.
Also representing the team was Iggy Vallejo, a St Mary’s Football representative, he did a fantastic job on the night; Rowan Bonson, representing the Nightcliff Football Club and also the communities around Katherine; Jarred Illet from the St Mary’s Football Club, returning from Port Adelaide; Kurt Heazlewood, a recruit to the Wanderer’s Football Club; Shannon Rusca, ex-Western Bulldogs player and Brisbane Lions’ footballer - he was representing the Nightcliff Football Club and is an outstanding footballer whom I had the opportunity and honour to get to know at the Charlie Perkins Cup held in Canberra at the end of last year. He was picked in the Indigenous All Australian team.
Ben Ah Mat, captain of the Darwin Football Club, one of the stars of the football competition, Nichols Medallist and current captain of his local football club, the Darwin Buffalos. He did a fantastic job on the night. I am sure he will please the crowds in the next 10 years or so, if not getting an opportunity to play at an AFL level. Richard Tambling is an all-Australian for his age group and I think people recognise that if he was at the appropriate age last year, he would have been drafted to the AFL. No doubt he will be playing in the AFL in years to come. Damien Zammitt, one of the senior leaders at the Darwin Football Club - I should correct myself here, I think Damian is actually the captain of the Darwin Football Club and Ben Ah Mat is the vice captain.
Peter Shepperd from the Magpies in Palmerston played a fantastic game; Warren Berto from the Nightcliff Football Club; Justin Wilson; Jason Roe from the Nightcliff Football Club, ex-Collingwood draftee as well; Corey Ah Chee returning from Port Adelaide and also representing Darwin Football Club, played a fantastic game at centre half back, centre and full back. Daniel Motlop, who actually put into his AFL contract that he be allowed to return to play for NTFL representative games, and again part of the Motlop clan.
Craig Parsons, representing St Mary’s Football Club; Tim Karpany, the Wanderers Football Club; Shannon Goldsmith, a recruit from South Australia who played a fantastic game on the night, if not the best player, also representing the Darwin Football Club. Mark Tyrell, captain/coach of the Magpies Football Club, played an outstanding game in the second half from the back line. Ben Cooke; Nick Ingall, a young up and coming probably key centre-half forward of the competition, playing for St Mary’s Football Club, premiership player. Dion Grant, Millner resident, ex-Nightcliff, current Palmerston player, an outstanding footballer in the last 10 years, comes from an outstanding football family. He is one of those people who will be able to say when he retires that he was very unlucky not to get an opportunity to play in the AFL. He has played in the last four grand finals, winning two for the Palmerston Magpies.
Balraj Singh from the Waratah Football Club; Brad Nordhausen from the Wanderers Football Club; Ian Carroll from the Waratah Football Club - he was the unfortunate lad who contested a mark in the goal square in front of me and received an elbow to the jaw, and instantaneously, unfortunately I could tell that he had done some serious damage. He had broken his jaw and we wish him the best from Parliament House, and all members hope for a speedy recovery - and Neville Clark.
These players had an opportunity to play against some fantastic footballers, and they will be able to carry these memories to the day that they die. They had an opportunity to play against players like Rohan Smith, Brad Johnson, Scott West, Matthew Croft, Adam Cooney, Chris Grant, and Patrick Bowden - a Territory boy from Alice Springs, the son of Michael Bowden; Jade Rawlins, and Steven Coops, a young local boy who has moved now from the Fremantle Dockers to the Western Bulldogs. I wish him the best and hope he has a successful career there.
It was a fantastic night. I know everyone who participated was very surprised that the crowd did turn out in force, a total of 7000, I understand. I would also like to congratulate the Southern Districts Football Club and the Darwin Football Club for holding stalls there. The Darwin footy club committee worked hard and I understand they raised quite a few thousand dollars selling yiros, soft drinks and steak sandwiches etcetera. No doubt with continued hard work, they will be able to secure the position to play in finals in coming years.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the relationship Michael McLean has had with the Western Bulldogs. As he told me, he spent the first nine years of his football career from the age, I think he said, of 17 to 26, with the Western Bulldogs. He grew up at that football club and has close ties with that football club. He was able to sit in the box with the Western Bulldogs and enjoyed watching the coaches at an AFL level ply their trade. He was able to walk around the change rooms. He offered an analysis on the football game and what he thought would be the issues for the Western Bulldogs, and he was able to stand out on the ground with the Western Bulldogs. Though away from the huddle, he was able to listen in to Peter Rohde, whom he had the opportunity to meet at the function held at Parliament House. The event was proudly sponsored by MGM Grand, in Darwin, Australia. It was a great night had by one and all. The result was fantastic. The NTFL was very unlucky; we were losing only by one point, and if the ball had bounced the ball right way, the Northern Territory would have won and continued their fantastic record in NTFL representative games.
My congratulations to all players, staff, NTFL and of course, the helpers, the water boys, the strappers, the water girls, and the physios who made the night a fantastic success.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise as I do each first night of the first day of the sittings each year, to talk about the Chinese New Year for the year. This year is the Chinese New Year of the Monkey. My daughter is 24 years of age and she was born in Year of the Monkey. The Year of the Monkey is going to be a very unpredictable year, as they say, just like the monkey, leaping from branch to branch, playing chasey or sitting immersed in its own thoughts - all very compelling. It is also quite an unpredictable young creature. I get most of my information on Chinese horoscopes from a book by Neil Somerville. I have used his books now for the last 10 years, each year I come here to talk about Chinese New Year.
Chinese New Year this year was on 22 January, and as usual, the Chinese community in Darwin celebrated the festival over the following two weeks. It involved many of the other ethnic communities in Darwin, including them in festivities. It was a good way to showcase the Chinese culture that has been so long practised in Darwin.
To be slightly different from previous years as I have presented Chinese New Year, I might describe what they would do normally over a 15-day celebration of Chinese New Year. This I found on a web site through the Victorian University in California, and I quote from it:
- The first day of the lunar New Year is the welcoming of the gods of the heavens and earth and many people abstain
from meat on the first day of the new year because it is believed that this will ensure a long and happy life for them.
On the second day, the Chinese pray to their ancestors as well as to all the gods. They are extra kind to dogs and feed
them well, as it is believed that the second day is the birthday of all dogs.
The third and fourth days are for the sons-in-law to pay respect to their parents-in-law.
The fifth day is called Po Woo. On that day, people stay home to welcome the God of Wealth. No one visits family
and friends on the fifth day because it will bring both parties bad luck.
On the sixth day to the tenth day, the Chinese visit their relatives and friends freely. They also visit the temples to pray
for good fortune and health.
The seventh day of the New Year is a day for the farmers to display their produce. These farmers make a drink from
the seven types of vegetables to celebrate the occasion. The seventh day is also considered the birthday of human
beings. Noodles are eaten to promote longevity, and raw fish for success.
On the eighth day, the Fujian people …
The Fujian people are from the province of Fujian in the southern part of China, across the ocean from the little island of Taiwan.
- … have another family reunion dinner and at midnight, they pray to … the God of Heaven …
The ninth day of the Chinese new year festival is the day to make offerings to the Jade Emperor. The tenth through to the twelfth days are days when friends and relatives should be invited for dinner, and then after so much food and drink on those days, the thirteenth day should be a simple day with simple rice congee and mustard greens to clean the system. On the fourteenth and fifteenth days, they continue on with the celebrations, which culminate in the Lantern Festival on the night of the fifteenth.
I said that the Year of the Monkey is going to be very unpredictable, yet cheerful and energetic. Monkeys are clever, so children born in the Year of the Monkey, which is this year and every 12 years backwards, so 1992, 1980, and 1968. As they say, give a monkey a boring book to read and he will turn it into a musical. Better yet, he will probably invite everyone to see it for free. They are always alert and can feel surroundings, even as they are thoroughly engaged in conversation. They are very sociable and have a very active outside life. Monkeys sympathise with people, and they in turn trust you with their secrets. They are a good friend to have. They can forgive, but they never forget and they can be also be very vengeful if somebody wrongs them over several times.
In the Chinese zodiac they match up different animal signs, and they found that Monkeys are most compatible with a person born in the Year of the Rat, which is in four years time. Other signs that are compatible are the Dragon, the Tiger, and the Pig. People who are born in those years – I am sure they know who they are - would find people born in this year very great friends and very compatible with them.
In Chinese New Year, the Chinese also have very traditional New Year foods which they do not use at any other time of the year. It is probably also the time of the year that more food is consumed than any other time. About a month from Chinese New Year, family and friends come together and they prepare lots of cakes and biscuits which they then try to save in vacuum sealed tins and jars until New Year’s Day before they come out for sharing.
On New Year’s Day, the Chinese family will eat a vegetarian dish called jai. Although the various ingredients in jai are root vegetables or fibrous vegetables, many people attribute various superstitious aspects to them. The roots and seeds usually include lotus seeds which signify having many male offspring. The gingko nut is used and, because it looks very much like the old Chinese silver ingots used as money, the gingko nut is used to resemble wealth. Black moss seaweed is also used, and that is synonymous with having exceeding in wealth. Dried bean curd is used on Chinese New Year to represent fulfilment of wealth and happiness. Bamboo shoots are also used because the sound of the Chinese word sounds very much like wishing that everything would be well. It is important to understand that, while dried bean curd is used in Chinese New Year, fresh bean curd or tofu is not used because of its white colour. White is not a colour that you would use during Chinese New Year.
Other foods which are used include fish to represent togetherness, and chicken for prosperity. When the chicken is cooked and presented for consumption, it must always be presented with the head, tail and feet complete, to represent the wholeness of the relationship that you have with that person. Noodles that you serve should not be cut. The thin rice vermicelli noodles should be served uncut because each strand is supposed to represent the long life of the person who eats the noodles will have.
One of the things I remember as a child, was the superstitions that went on with Chinese New Year. We were all told – and probably this was just a way that my grandmother and my parents used to bluff me into helping them to do spring cleaning – a week before Chinese New Year, we all go through what you call spring cleaning of the house. The entire house is cleaned – roof and ceilings, right through to the basement. On New Year’s Eve, once the cleaning is all done, all brooms, brushes, dusters, dustpans and any other cleaning equipment must be put away out of sight. On New Year’s Day, sweeping or dusting should not be done for fear that any good fortune will be swept out of the home and away. After New Year’s Day, floors can be swept. The superstition is that the sweeping must be from the door towards the middle of the house so that you don’t sweep anything out, and the dust and rubbish will then be placed in the corners of the room and not taken out until the fifth day of Chinese New Year period. At no times should rubbish in corners be trampled upon. If you sweep and you push the dust and dirt out over the threshold then potentially you could sweep one of your family members away.
Fire crackers are very much a traditional thing you see at Chinese New Year. This is a way of making a lot of loud noises to usher the old year out and welcome in the new year, but at the same time scare away any evil spirits that might come towards your home, towards your door, towards your office, scaring and preventing any evil spirits from entering your premises so that they do not bring any ill fortune into your place.
One of the things that I observe is that you pay all your debts prior to New Year’s Day, so you start a new year owing nothing, and not being owed anything. You should not lend money prior to this day. If you lend money, or you have somebody owe you money, just over New Year’s Day then it is likely you will be forever owed money for the rest of the year. Back in the days when tinder and flint were used, Chinese people were also very loath to lend anybody a light.
Everyone should also refrain from using foul language, and bad words, and I suppose that is a very good philosophy to have. If you don’t start swearing at anybody on New Year’s Day you might not swear at anybody at all all year round and that is indeed a good way to get on with the neighbours.
On New Year’s Day too, and this applied to women more than anything else - I was asked this question last New Year’s Day, were you allowed to wash your hair? It is something that you are not allowed to do on New Year’s Day as it would wash away all the good luck you might have. You wash your head on New Year’s Eve and then on New Year’s Day you get up, you have your shower and then you wear the newest clothes that you could have. Most of us would have brand new clothes made just prior to New Year’s Day ready to be worn on the first day of the New Year. I can remember as a child putting on all brand new clothes, including brand new shoes, and then going out visiting all our relatives, getting the red packets or hong bao from them. All the married relatives would give the young ones, the unmarried kids, red packets. The more visiting you do the more relatives you meet, the more money you get for Chinese New Year. You can use the money to then buy anything you like for the next two weeks to celebrate Chinese New Year. It was great fun growing up then.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016