2003-04-30
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, this morning I welcome students from Living Waters Lutheran School and Ross Park Primary School. On behalf of all members, I extend you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Visitor Numbers to Alice Springs Sittings
Visitor Numbers to Alice Springs Sittings
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I inform you that our counter showed us we had 1391 people pass through our doors yesterday. If I take off 10% for staff that brings us to about 1200, and that is great.
I will also read a message I received from the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Ian Tuxworth, the former member for Barkly:
I wish to convey my congratulations to the members of the Legislative Assembly for this magnificent
initiative which will bring the people of Central Australia closer to government. It is hard to imagine
that it has taken 25 years to do so. My best wishes to you all.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Upgrade of Roads in Central Australia
Upgrade of Roads in Central Australia
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, this morning I make a further announcement on roads in Central Australia. This morning, at a breakfast for the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, I announced that my government would spend an additional $2m next financial year on sealing the Tanami Road. This road is a key economic generator in Central Australia, and links one of our biggest mines with the freight networks of the rest of Australia. It is also a developing tourist road; and provides a very picturesque alternative for people travelling into Western Australia. It runs through the unique environment of the Tanami Desert. It is also a road that links people and places. The Tanami Road links one of the largest Central Australian communities, Yuendumu, with Alice Springs. It is a vital link for the delivery of services from Alice Springs to Yuendumu and other communities.
It can be seen that the road is important in a number of crucial ways. Not only will the addition of this money move the seal closer to the critical communities and mines, it will lift the safety level of the area. The Tanami Road is, on some occasions, little better than a track. Trucks carrying the mines’ product have suffered severe damage. There have been countless cases of trauma and, in some cases, death, over many years along this road. I will be travelling along part of the road on Friday on my way to the Newmont mine. I am looking forward to seeing first-hand the condition of it. The additional $2m should add 15 km to 20 km on the seal depending on the cost factors involved in the work.
As I said earlier, this is the second major announcement on new road works made in 48 hours. On Monday, it gave me great pleasure to announce the $30m Mereenie Loop Road project over the next 10 years. The return for this investment in Central Australia will be significant. It will mean more tourists, potential growth for the mines, more jobs, and a massive improvement in road safety. This government does not believe in sitting back and waiting for things to happen. In just 20 months, we set in place an agreement with the traditional owners to seal the Mereenie Loop, compared to the failure to act in eight years by the CLP government.
We started increasing the seal on the Tanami Road, when the previous government sat on its hands on this key economic lifeblood because the mine owners would not contribute. We are in discussions with the mine owners, but we are not waiting for that outcome before we take action on this very important road. Instead, we are doing what should have been done years ago. This is the difference between my government and our predecessors.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, this side of the House always welcomes the expenditure of money on roads and important infrastructure, particularly in the Alice Springs area. I am glad to see that the government is spending $2m to upgrade the Tanami Road. I look forward to increased spending in the future on the road maintenance in the area.
Indeed, it will become a much more important tourist road over time, and the safety aspect I cannot drive home enough, having had the experience of stopping at numerous motor vehicle accidents over the years in Central Australia.
I urge that the government, however, takes the time and care to spend the money in the correct places at the correct time. I noticed yesterday that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure announced that he has $400 000 in this year’s budget to seal the road to Hermannsburg. I point out to the minister that has actually already been achieved; the road to Hermannsburg was sealed several years ago.
The Mereenie Loop Road is also something that we welcome. I notice that the minister touches on it again. I am pleased to say that we support that as well. I hope the government knows where it is spending the money in terms of the physical development of these roads.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Macdonnell for his comments and his support. Let me assure the member for Macdonnell that the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment is very well aware of the needs of the road and have been involved in many discussions about it over many years.
What these hardworking road engineers and others associated with building roads across the Territory have been waiting for is the funds to do it. The critical difference between this government and the previous one is that, while we had departments which knew what needed to be done in being able to seal, create jobs, and bring tourism and mining opportunities, we recognised this and supplied the funds to do it. That is what these very important announcements are about.
______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it was remiss of me. We also have in the gallery students from Yirara College and Stirling School. On behalf of all members, I also welcome you.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
NT Crime Prevention Grants Scheme
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, today I will be announcing the successful applicants for the 2002-03 round of funding for the NT Crime Prevention Grants Scheme, representing a wide range of crime prevention projects.
Totalling $400 000, the Crime Prevention Grants Scheme supports our partnership approach to crime prevention and community safety, with funds for one-off small projects, longer-term targeted programs, and grants for our regional crime prevention councils. Fifty-two applications were received by the Office of Crime Prevention for this funding round which is a very encouraging response.
Eight Central Australian applications will be funded, with two from the Barkly region, representing over $150 000 in funding for Central Australia. A whole range of projects have been funded:
Alice Springs Women’s Centre to develop domestic and family violence audio kits;
for indigenous youth;
in Alice Springs;
ethnic communities; and
Mr Burke: How much?
Dr TOYNE: $400 000 in total for the scheme.
The Real Justice in Schools Project will also be funded over the next 3 years. Regional grants of $30 000 for community safety plans have been allocated to the Central Australian, Tennant Creek and Katherine Crime Prevention Councils. These projects demonstrate the breadth of the government’s crime prevention commitment. They are working examples of our crime prevention partnerships within the community, developing local approaches and creating new ways to make the Territory a safer place to live.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, this is the second time we have had a ministerial report on crime initiatives from this government in the last two days. Crime is probably one of the most serious issues in this community and we get two minutes to reply to ministerial reports that deal with crime issues. No other opportunity has been granted, and this minister should bring on a ministerial statement, not a report, so that it may debated properly.
This government has an awful record of crime in Central Australia. People are the issues, not just statistics. Yesterday, we saw the minister walk into this Chamber and say: ‘Oh, I have got some graphs for you’. Well, minister, I did some graphs yesterday as well, and I can demonstrate to you, in several areas from your figures, where crime has gone up in the areas of assaults, sexual assaults and offences against the person. That is three examples. I see your three, minister, and I raise you three more. Anybody can produce statistics on crime.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: The fact is that this is people who are being affected …
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the documents be tabled.
Leave granted; papers tabled.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, crime is a very serious issue in this community and it is about people - people who have had surgery to have steel plates put in their heads after being hit in the head with rocks and people who have to throw assailants off footbridges to get home safely. And what do we get from this government? An opportunity over two minutes in two days and gagged debates, repeatedly yesterday, in an effort to deal with it.
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: We had to bring on censure motions - and I pick up the interjection from the Leader of Government Business. We had to bring on censure motions which were gagged twice yesterday – twice - so that members could not stand up and talk about this issue here in Alice Springs. It is about time the government starts respecting this parliament and the people of Alice Springs.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, we are still hearing this hysterical stuff from the opposition. We had an hour-and-a-half of debate yesterday on the censure motion, which we quite gladly accepted and debated. We have a ministerial statement on the very subject of crime prevention running through the parliamentary program at the moment, and I am sure we will see some more of that.
A member interjecting.
Dr TOYNE: You have had your chance. On the point of figures, get used to these figures. The figures are coming from our police, the courts, and from Correctional Services. They do not like what the figures are showing; that we are making inroads, as a government, in crime - unprecedented in their time. Their only achievement during their period of government was to see crime gradually rise through. We have some trends going down. We are proud of that and we are quite happy to talk about that at any time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
The Chair apologises for perhaps cutting short members’ time yesterday. We have now rectified the problem. When the blue hand gets to the 12 you do have another minute. I assure the member for Macdonnell and the member for Araluen that you have a minute’s leave up your sleeve.
Northern Territory Planning Act Review
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I am happy to advise members that on 20 March I launched plans to revamp the Northern Territory’s planning system. Members will recall that my department and I have been reviewing all the provisions of the existing Planning Act for some 14 months now. Members would also be aware that, under the previous government - and this government - proposals to streamline the planning scheme have been progressing. The Planning Act falls short of community expectations and the planning scheme is outdated and far too complex. Reform will ensure that a clear and concise planing framework is put in place for the future development of the Territory.
A discussion paper reviewing the Planning Act 1999 identifies a number of issues that need to be addressed including consultation in the planning process; ministerial powers; the role of local government; the role of the minister’s Development Consent Authority; enforcement; and third party appeals right. Rather than determine the exact direction the reform will take in each of these areas, the discussion paper, at my request, outlines the issues in each case and provides methods of addressing those issues. I believe that this will encourage greater community participation in the reform process, and will ultimately lead to better community ownership of the final act - something that the previous government failed to achieve.
The government has stipulated two outcomes: there will be no devolution of planning powers to local government, and there will be a limited third party appeals mechanism.
I also release a draft of the new Northern Territory Planning Scheme which rationalises, integrates and consolidates the provisions of the various planning instruments that presently form the planning scheme. There will be one simple document rather than many. Currently, the planning scheme comprises 21 town plans and 82 other control plans covering Aboriginal community living areas, with a variety of land use objectives, guidelines, and more than 250 zones.
Many of the town plans date back to 1981 and are no longer relevant. We are proposing one single planning scheme that will apply over the whole of the Territory, except the town of Jabiru which is subject to Commonwealth legislation. Other changes include replacing more than 370 land use objectives with Northern Territory planning principles for the Territory and reducing more than 800 land use definitions down to 69 land use definitions consistent throughout the Territory. Many ludicrous situations exist within our planning schemes. For example, the car park space in Alice Springs is different dimensions from one in Darwin - obviously you drive bigger cars here.
The discussion paper and the draft scheme, including zoning maps, are available from my department offices in the major centres in the Territory and our web page. I have also sent it to all MLAs offices - both government and opposition. I urge industry groups, key stakeholders and anyone else interested in the government planning reform agenda to submit their comments by 31 May. During the next month, the consultation process will continue to include presentations to key stakeholders, groups and general community information sessions in each of the major regional centres.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, I welcome the news. As the minister has said, I have the documents in my office - as have other MLAs - to do with the review of the Planning Act and the scheme. As the minister has indicated, it was the CLP which initiated the scheme review and that is something that has been going on for some quite time which is necessary to put in order the various zoning and controls throughout the Northern Territory and make them consistent.
I am glad to see the minister is also reviewing the Planning Act as I did as a minister. It was one of my first jobs, in fact, as the new planning minister of the time. I am also glad to see that he is including the powers of the minister in that review. There is still some doubt about the very serious powers the minister used to direct the Development Consent Authority on a particular development here in Alice Springs on Petrick Road. I assume that is still under some cloud, minister, and that you may be actually going to do a backflip on that direction at some stage - perhaps even today.
I look forward to that backflip because this minister is becoming the minister for backflips. We had the no-fly zone over Nitmiluk, for instance, that was a total backflip. We have had the taxis just recently, and I understand there is going to be backflip on the issue of private hire cars. Now, it appears that we are going to have a backflip on the ministerial direction to the Development Consent Authority. Minister, I look forward to the outcomes of your review and to the next backflip later on today.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I welcome the bipartisan …
Madam SPEAKER: Sorry, minister, could you resume your seat for a moment? The member for Nelson did indicate he wanted a say.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition in November 1999 - the now Chief Minister - told the Legislative Assembly during the debate on the Planning Bill:
- … I wish to make it absoultely clear, regardless of these amendments … that on taking government the
Labor Party will throw the legislation out that’s before us tonight and rewrite the Planning Act.
This legislation is flawed. It fails to meet our principles and it fails all the stakeholders in the planning
process.
Later in the same speech, the then Leader of the Opposition said:
- I have considered submitting numerous amendments to the act, but the fact is that the bill is so flawed that
it must be rewritten.
Minister, whilst I agree this review is necessary, and I welcome it, I would be interested to know if the government is actually just amending the act or does it consider itself to be rewriting the act?
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I welcome the bipartisan support for the review of the act and the planning scheme. I also welcome the member for Nelson’s comments. I assure the member that this is not going to be the CLP Planning Act; it is going to be our Planning Act. I can actually throw it out, but let the community decide what it wants; let us have input from the community.
As for the so-called backflip alleged by the CLP; they call it a backflip. We actually call it listening to community concerns. We are prepared to change. I do not have to remind members on the other side that the taxi industry would be very happy if they had done a backflip, but they were so arrogant because they believed what they said was right, and they stuffed the industry.
As for the town planning issue in Alice Springs, I do not want to disappoint the member for Macdonnell, and I stick to my guns.
CeBIT 2003 – Trade Delegation to Hannover
Dr TOYNE (Communications): Madam Speaker, in March, I led the NT’s trade delegation to CeBIT 2003, the premier information and communication technology exhibition in the world, which is held in Hannover, Germany each year.
CeBIT showcases information and communication technology, telecommunications and software. This year it attracted 7000 exhibitors and almost 600 000 visitors. The NT delegation was comprised six Northern Territory businesses: Kim Ford and Trevor Oliver from CSM; Dennis McKenzie from CSG; Kelly Hammond from Crimson Innovations; Steven Rowe from SRA Information Technology; Brad Fitzgerald from Commercial Capital; Bruce and Che Diggins from Asset Management Services, the NT company which, in a first for the Territory, exhibited at CeBIT; and Andrew Hodges from the AIIA.
Those businesses, with the industry association and I, met with a number of ICT industry leaders to benchmark our NT products and services, make business contacts and get new ideas. It was clear from our work that NT businesses match and surpass global standards in niche areas, and that our strengths lie in our expertise in remote telecommunications, telemedicine, e-government and distance learning.
The delegation had fantastic support from a range of people in Hannover - Hannover Fairs, Austrade and Invest Australia. I particularly thank Frau Dorvitch for her friendly regimentation of the delegation.
Out of the trip to CeBIT, two members of the delegation - the companies CSM and SRA - announced a joint $20m venture: a national venture to create export services through this new partnership and, in doing so, create a new set of ICT jobs in the Territory.
The government provided funding assistance through the Export Marketing Assistance Scheme to businesses to attend CeBIT 2003. Debrief sessions to discuss the business opportunities resulting from the trip were held in Darwin and Alice Springs, and both were very well attended. Immediately following the delegation’s return, an ICT export collaboration and clustering workshop was held in Darwin. The workshop concluded with an exciting five-year strategy and a goal to build on key competencies in the NT ICT industry to be acknowledged as the ICT enabler for remote area total solutions, and have a 25% component of NT ICT revenues generated from exports.
A plan of action is now being developed to deliver the vision. There is great enthusiasm and drive within the ICT industry. A number of businesses are now going to attend CeBIT in Sydney this week to carry on with the very promising work that was done at CeBIT Hannover. I certainly wish them all the best.
Madam Speaker, every year our government provides $1m in industry development to ICT, sourced from the outsource arrangements for the delivery of ICT within government system. From our trip to CeBIT we will get this new direction for that industry development. The first grants that I announced some weeks ago now will result in a $2m additional investment into the ICT industry, an estimated 100 jobs, and an export potential of $40m. The ICT industry in the Northern Territory is on the march, and we are very excited to be in there helping them by getting to events such as CeBIT.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister for travelling to Hannover to attend CeBIT 2003. I thought it was a good idea that the minister actually went overseas to open his eyes to see what the international forum is about, and also to take our Northern Territory business people there to see for themselves that what they produce in the Northern Territory is equal to any in the world. Having that baseline to measure themselves against, they would have the confidence to continue to develop the ventures and the products that they are so good at. I am very pleased to hear about the joint venture. I was told about that at the post-CeBIT briefing that was held in Alice Springs just a couple of weeks ago. I encouraged delegates who attended the briefing to attend CeBIT so that they can learn that what they produce in Alice Springs and in the Northern Territory can have an international forum in which to sell their wares.
I find it also very interesting. I remember a time when the minister himself, then in opposition, cajoled and teased the former member for Leanyer, Mr Fred Finch. ‘The silver surfer’ he called himself. He said he can learn anything just from the Internet alone; get on the web, learn everything he wants, download anything he likes. But, at long last, this minister has learnt for himself - thank goodness for that - that he needs to go to overseas forums to see what things are like. For all other ministers, take this minister’s example: learn for yourselves; do the right sort of travel. Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, do that sort of travel and you will learn a lot more than you will ever learn just sitting in that chair.
Dr TOYNE (Communications): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for his somewhat churlish support for our activities. We will certainly continue to take appropriate trips, trips that have a start and a finish. In other words, we are preparing strategically for the trips. We are following up very actively once we get back from these trips. That is why we have delivered tangible benefits to this industry. In closing, I would just like to say there were no Mike Tyson fights on in Hannover at the time we were there.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Hansard Production
Hansard Production
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on to government business, I wish to congratulate Hansard and our Table Office people. Yesterday after lunch we had the Question Paper and now this morning first thing, we have our debates from yesterday. They are doing an excellent job.
I just remind members that you will need to speak at the microphones.
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT (INCORPORATED LEGAL PRACTICES
AND MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PARTNERSHIPS) BILL
(Serial 142)
AND MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PARTNERSHIPS) BILL
(Serial 142)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to implement reforms identified as a consequence of the National Competition Policy (NCP) review of the Legal Practitioners (Incorporation) Act. These reforms will remove various shackles on the ways in which legal practitioners provide professional services within a business framework. The bill should ensure that there is an appropriate balancing of professionalism, ethics and consumer protection.
In April 1995, the Commonwealth, states and territories signed three intergovernmental agreements that comprised the National Competition Policy reform package. Compliance with the agreed National Competition Policy reforms is a prerequisite for a series of competition payments to the Territory from the Commonwealth. These payments have been estimated at over $7m per annum from 2001 and 2002.
One of the National Competition Policy agreements - namely, the Competition Principles Agreement - obliges the Territory, along with the states, to examine all legislation that may contain provisions that are anti-competitive. Within the context of the Competition Principles Agreement, a very broad approach is taken as to what provisions are anti-competitive. A provision may be anti-competitive if it does any of the following:
governs the entry or exit of firms or individuals into or out of markets;
activities from pressures of competition.
The guiding principle underpinning each review is that the legislation should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that the benefits to the community as a whole outweigh the costs of the restriction, and the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition.
The Legal Practitioners (Incorporation) Act was identified as possibly containing anti-competitive provisions. This act has been reviewed by a review team comprising members of the former Department of Industries and Business, the former Northern Territory Attorney-General’s Department, Northern Territory Treasury, and the Chief Minister’s Department. The review team, as part of the wider review of the Legal Practitioners Act, along with related legislation, produced an issues paper in September 2000. This paper was widely circulated within the legal profession and was the subject of a detailed comment from the Law Society Northern Territory.
The review team reported on all of the matters required for the purposes of the NCP review. I will now summarise both the findings and the government’s response to those findings. Currently, the Legal Practitioners (Incorporation) Act provides that a body corporate may only provide legal services if it is a company approved by the Chief Justice for the purposes of the act. Such companies must be owned and controlled by legal practitioners or their families. The legal practitioner owners of such companies are liable for the debts of the company. Effectively, the act operates so as to deny legal practitioners most of the benefits of incorporation.
The most significant issue to be resolved in an NCP review is that of what is the objective of the legislative intervention in the market. The review team found that the main objective of the act is to ensure that the provision of legal services by a corporation does not lead to a reduction in professional responsibilities. In light of this objective, the review team found that most of the provisions in the Legal Practitioners (Incorporation) Act cannot be justified in their present form. In particular, the review team found that the following provisions should be repealed:
the prohibition on forming a company for the purposes of carrying on a practice of a legal
practitioner, unless the company is a practising company;
must obtain from the Chief Justice approval to form a practising company;
where there are only two directors, one holds an unrestricted practising certificate and the other
is a mere relative;
Chief Justice; and
The review team found that the objectives of the act could be met by the enactment in the Northern Territory of legislation modelled on the Division 2A of Part 3 of the New South Wales Legal Profession Act 1987, subject to specified modifications. The government has accepted these recommendations. The bill provides for the implementation of them.
Before I deal with the provisions of the bill, I advise that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has made some in-principle decisions concerning the development of model legislation regarding lawyers, including incorporated legal practices. This Northern Territory bill reflects the generality of the instructions forming the basis of the drafting of the model legislation. This model bill is unlikely to be settled until later in 2003. However, national developments concerning the model bill have been taken into account in the development of this Northern Territory bill. Further changes to the model bill will be considered by the Northern Territory prior to the passage of this legislation and its commencement. In particular, the government will consult further with the Law Society Northern Territory and the judiciary concerning the bill.
In broad summary, the bill provides for the repeal of the Legal Practitioners (Incorporation) Act, the replacement of it by Part 4AA and for various amendments to the act consequential on the change in approach to incorporated legal practices. The new Part 4AA places the focus on the professional activities of legal practitioners who work in the corporation. Accordingly, it does not contain the restrictions contained in the current legislation. For example, there will be no longer any need for specific approval to establish a corporation that can provide legal services, nor will there be any limitations under the Northern Territory law on who can own and control such companies in respect of their business activities.
I now set out the provisions of the bill in more detail. The main provision is that the bill contains a general permission for all ordinary corporations to provide legal services for reward subject to compliance with the various regulatory obligations. These regulatory requirements are as follow:
at least one director of the corporation must be a legal practitioner who holds an unrestricted
practising certificate under the act or an equivalent certificate from those jurisdictions that are
participants in the travelling practising certificate scheme. Such directors are known as ‘lawyer
directors’;
corporation and for ensuring adequate professional supervision, including reporting breaches to
the regulatory authority;
that the professional obligations of the employees of a legal practice corporation are not diminished
by the fact of such employment;
with the legislation providing that the extent of the privilege will depend on the capacity in which any
particular employee or officer of the corporation has made a communication;
for incorporated legal practitioners to be required to notify the regulatory authority, which is the Law
Society Northern Territory, that these legal services are being provided;
This would be information such as to enable the Law Society to perform its regulatory obligations; and,
finally
if the corporation has been found guilty of offences or if it has a history of employing persons who, whilst
in such employment, are guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct or of
employing persons who are suspended or disqualified.
The bill also provides for a number of other matters arising from the fact that incorporated legal practices are to be regulated by both the Legal Practitioners Act and the Corporations Act 2001. First, the bill provides that the Law Society may disclose information to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Second, the bill provides that the Law Society is entitled to be a party to proceedings under Chapter 5 of the Corporations Act 2001. Third, the bill provides that Parts 8A and 9 of the Legal Practitioners Act do not apply to incorporated legal practices. These parts deal with legal practices placed under management or receivership. New section 35AZI provides that, to the extent of any inconsistency, the Legal Practitioners Act prevails over the Corporations Act 2001 in respect of the powers and functions of the corporations. Such Northern Territory legislative provisions are made possible by section 5F of the Corporations Act 2001.
Finally, the bill provides for multi-disciplinary practices. In the course of development of the model national bill, it was recognised that reforms that freed up the provision of legal services by corporations necessarily led to consideration of other business restrictions which may exist in respect of lawyers who do not wish to practice within a corporate structure. Division 3 of the new Part 4AA sets up a framework governing partnerships between lawyers and providers of other services. In general terms, these provisions mimic those that apply to corporations, and operate so as to remove the various provisions of the current act …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, could I ask you to pause for a moment? Apparently we are having difficulty picking up your voice. You really need to project your voice a lot louder if you could.
Dr TOYNE: In respect of these provisions, dealing with multi-disciplinary practices, the Law Society has expressed some reservations. The government anticipates that the bill will provide appropriate answers to those reservations, and a workable balance between professionalism, business needs and consumer protection. However, we accept that this part of the legislation introduces new principles. Currently, no other jurisdiction has legislation in operation, though the Western Australian parliament is in the course of debating similar provisions, and most other jurisdictions appear to be supportive of similar provisions contained in the model bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Before we go on, Clerk, I advise the students in the gallery we are actually introducing bills into the parliament. This is what we call a second reading speech.
I would like to acknowledge in the gallery the presence of students from OLSH College and some additional students from Yirara College. On behalf of everyone, I extend a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 141)
(Serial 141)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to allow DNA evidence to be tendered by way of certificate in criminal proceedings. Criminal proceedings are intended to give the widest possible interpretation and extend from major criminal trials to pre-hearings, matters on complaint and minor indictable offences. If the Coroner chooses to do so, certificates may also be admitted as evidence in coronial inquires.
DNA evidence is an important investigation and prosecution tool in criminal proceedings. It provides a unique means of identifying an individual, and can be ascertained from biological matters such as blood, hair or saliva, and can be lifted from clothing, housebreaking implements or weapons. However, as opposed to fingerprints, where a fingerprint technician locates and lifts a fingerprint at a crime scene and compares it to a known fingerprint on file, DNA requires more scientific processing before the final product can be compared with samples on the DNA database. When the Forensic Biology Section of the Northern Territory Police accepts a case it is controlled by one scientist, known as the reporting scientist. A number of other scientists and technicians - examining scientists - may work on it. However, the ultimate responsibility for the scientific interpretations and conclusions for the final report remains with the reporting scientist. This concentration of responsibility for procedures and documentation in the reporting scientist reflects national standards for carrying out forensic DNA profiling.
Court obligations can impact heavily on a scientist’s time. As well, where the procedure for testing the sample is not at issue, valuable court time is used up in calling all the scientists - and there may be a number of them whose work has contributed to the chain of evidence.
In the Queensland case R v Hytch 2000 QCA 315, Justice Mackenzie said:
- It will generally be inevitable that a forensic scientist will be called to interpret the findings of their
analysis and statistics which give the findings their cogency. Whether it is necessary to call other persons
involved in the process, either to prove continuity of the sample or for cross-examination in the hope that
some actual flaw in the process may be fortuitously discovered is, no doubt, a matter for judgment for
counsel in a particular case.
In other areas of the law where analyses are performed, identity of the sample tested, and by inference,
the integrity of the testing process, can be proved by certificate; for example, under the Misuse of Drugs Act
or the Traffic Act. The same kind of resource implications that underlies such provisions may be assumed to
exist in the case of DNA samples.
It may be that if unnecessary strains are placed on resources by routinely calling persons who are unlikely
to give contentious evidence, it will be necessary in the future for the legislature to consider such a provision
with regard to DNA evidence. There should, of course, be no impediment to calling witnesses in cases where
the real purpose will be served by requiring them to give evidence.
The decision I have quoted was handed down in Queensland. The same principles apply to the Territory where significant demands are placed on staff in our forensic laboratory without the additional burden of having to spend what, in some cases, is unnecessary time in court or in waiting to give evidence.
This bill, therefore, inserts a new section 24, Evidentiary Certificate by the Reporting Scientist, into the Evidence Act. The effect of this section is that the certificate signed by a reporting scientist appointed under the statute, because of their qualifications and experience, is evidence of the matters stated in the certificate. Matters in the certificate may include: the day a thing was received at the laboratory; the day or days within which testing was completed; that a stated DNA profile was obtained; and that the reporting scientist had examined laboratory procedures and confirmed that the records indicated appropriate quality assurance procedures had been complied with. If a party to the proceeding intends to challenge any matter in the certificate, then the reporting scientist must be called to give evidence. Other witnesses involved in the testing process, apart from the reporting scientist, do not have to be called by the prosecution unless the court gives leave to do so.
The section contains a number of safeguards to ensure that the rights of the accused are not prejudiced. A party seeking to rely on a certificate must, upon request, produce all records related to the receipt, storage and testing of the thing within a stated time. Further, a party seeking to challenge a matter stated in the certificate may, with the leave of the court and provided that the prescribed notice is given, call any person involved in the receipt, storage or testing of the thing to give evidence.
These provisions are in line with the statement in the New South Wales Court of Appeal in R v Sing [2002] NSWCCA20, that to admit the evidence of expert witnesses - in this case, scientists supervising DNA analyses - over objection, without the evidence of the persons who actually carried out the procedures which have resulted in the print-outs, and without any evidence that there was any difficulty in calling those persons, involved unfair prejudice to the accused. The new section of the Evidence Act is intended to preserve/conserve valuable resources within the criminal justice process without, in any way, prejudicing the rights of the accused.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL
(Serial 146)
(Serial 146)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various Northern Territory laws in minor respects, or to correct minor errors that have come to light. None of these changes proposed reflect substantive changes in policy.
Section 17 of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act is amended to make it clear that a medical report provided to a court in accordance with the relevant rules or practice directions, need not be given an affidavit. This resolves an inconsistency and reflects the intention of the legislation.
The bill amends section 7 of the Status of Children Act to reflect modern drafting style.
The Taxation (Administration) Act is amended by omitting two identical definitions of the term ‘discretionary trust’ contained within two sections of the act, and inserting one definition into the general definitions section. Adopting a single definition of the term will also clarify the operation of item 9A(ba) of Schedule 2 to the Stamp Duty Act, as these acts are read as one.
A number of other acts, by-laws, regulations and rules are amended in minor ways; for example, by correcting references to names of acts which may have changed or been repealed, correcting spelling mistakes or making provisions gender neutral. The other amendments made by the bill are of a very minor nature and are generally self-explanatory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Statute Law Revision Bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
BUILDING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 139)
(Serial 139)
Bill present and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
At the Council of Australian Governments meeting of April 1995, heads of government signed three agreements establishing the National Competition Policy. They are commonly referred to as the NCP agreements. Under the NCP agreements all states and territories were required to develop timetables for reviewing all existing legislation, conduct reviews in accordance with the timetable and, where appropriate, amend or repeal legislation that restricts competition.
The Building Act was identified as requiring NCP review. The Building Act was reviewed in accordance with National Competition Policy in October 1999. The Building Act was identified as requiring general review at this time, and the National Competition Policy review was not implemented on the understanding that it would be amended to accommodate the amendments of the general review.
The general review has encountered numerous delays and it has been decided to implement recommendations of the National Competition Policy review separately in order to comply with the requirements of National Competition Policy. The National Competition Policy review recommends repealing sections 21, 41 and 46 of the Building Act and retaining 14 other sections that have been identified as anti-competitive, because it is considered to be in the public interest to mandate standards of building practitioners, building products and practices. These recommendations are consistent with the legislative frameworks of other jurisdictions and the national agenda on building regulation.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Building Act to repeal sections 21, 41 and 46. Section 46 comprises the entire Part 4 Division 3 of the Building Act. Section 21 allows the minister to declare that for projects of Territory or regional significance, the Director of Building Control is to exercise the functions of a building certifier. That provision has not been utilised in the eight-year operation of the act, and the circumstances where this provision would be appropriate are difficult to imagine and cannot be defended on the grounds of public benefit considerations.
Section 41 prevents a building certifier, under the direction of the minister, acting due to potential conflict of interest. This provision has also not been exercised in the life of the legislation. The primary difficulty of the provision is that the minister must become aware of the circumstances which he or she regards as a potential conflict of interest and make the direction. It does not require the certifier to disclose the potential conflict of interest nor oblige a certifier to disqualify himself or herself from the job on the basis of a potential conflict of interest.
Section 46 exempts public authorities from the requirement to engage a building certifier and may instead appoint an employee to perform that function. There is no requirement for that person to hold the qualification of a building certifier. This provision is anti-competitive because it restricts the access of suitably qualified persons from the private sector. There is no benefit to the public in the exercise of this limitation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT (COSTS AND ADVERTISING) BILL
(Serial 138)
(Serial 138)
Continued from 27 February 2003.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, it is a tragedy, sometimes, that I have to draw the line between being a lawyer and a politician. For political expediency and a whole heap of reasons, I would prefer to trawl through this piece of legislation and spend a day arguing many of the provisions which will have an effect on the profession and, ultimately, on the access to justice, which members of the Territory community currently enjoy. However, it is part of a raft of tort reforms and, ultimately, many of the arguments, persuasive or otherwise, that this piece of legislation attracts, really are general observations about the reaction by governments across Australia in dealing with the insurance crisis, the public liability crisis and those sort of justifications that we see regularly in the paper.
I can indicate that, reluctantly, the opposition will not be opposing the bill. I have several grave reservations about what is occurring and, though the object of what the government is trying to do is certainly a noble object, I have concerns about the path which is being taken to achieve that particular goal.
It is ironic that, on the same day that I received a copy of a report of the national insurance body about the tort law reform, from an insurance industry representative, I also received some material from the Law Society about access to justice. We have all heard of Law Week and most members of the Territory community are aware of the good work which the Darwin Community Legal Service does in providing access to justice for members of the community, for free. It involves being on radio and talking to schools. Yet, on the same day, I had an opportunity to peruse the recommendations of the insurance industry. A number of these are contained in this and other portions of this legislation which is coming before parliament, some of which have already been passed, and some are in the form of the Legal Practitioners Amendment (Costs and Advertising) Bill which, ultimately, I think, may have the very opposite effect. That is, it will restrict the access which people have to justice.
I attended a book launch recently. It was a very distinguished current member of the Queensland Supreme Court. I talked to him and asked him, quite candidly, what he thought of what was happening in that particular jurisdiction and the effect that it was having on litigation, insurance premiums and the access to justice issue. He said that they were not at a crisis point but it was certainly heading towards that path where people were appearing as unrepresented litigants. People could not find a lawyer, for example, to do a speculative matter, a personal injuries matter, because, quite simply, it is just not economical for many legal practitioners to do that type of work. Therefore, ultimately, that person comes before the court unrepresented. It seems that everyone in this parliament constantly echoes ‘my rights’, ‘my freedoms’, ‘the fundamental rights of the community’, ‘champion to the causes of the downtrodden’. However, it is not much good having these noble aims of trying to live within just laws if you cannot access those rights and have access to those just laws.
There is a real possibility that this piece of legislation will be another obstacle placed before the very group of people whom we should be protecting. That famous reference to the yardstick used in determining how civilised our society functions, is how it treats the people who are most vulnerable.
In any event, the government does have an obligation to deal with the public liability issue. The problem of escalating public liability insurance demonstrates and confirms a systemic failure of government to see there is a problem, to understand it, and respond in a measured and appropriate way. There is a fair bit of literature and debate about this entire spectrum of tort law reform. I am sure that the Attorney-General, during the course of his conferences and seeking advice and recommendation and submissions from special interest groups, heard a lot of these. However, for the record, there are a couple of alternative views or reservations that should be put into Hansard in a general way, rather than going through the minutiae of the legislation.
The bill which is specifically being debated today, as the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech, relates to the advertising of legal services in respect of personal injuries. It also talks about the limitation on the premium or uplift fee. It talks about the general regime for regulation of conditional costs agreements. Also there are some restrictions - not a full blown prohibition but, certainly, some restrictions on touting and the like.
Every single member of this parliament and in the Territory community who has anything to do with a sporting or non-profit organisation would be aware that there is a great deal of community concern about rising public liability insurance premiums. It is incumbent - as I said earlier - upon this Martin Labor government and every other government to produce for the people of the Northern Territory evidence that it is being proactive but, probably, evidence which it is going to rely upon in establishing that the changes which are embodied in this legislation will have the required effect on public liability insurance premiums. I certainly have not seen any evidence from the Attorney-General - cogent, logical evidence - that what is occurring will have a real effect in reduced public liability insurance. I have not seen the estimates or the statistical data which support the raft of reforms. I am aware, of course, it is occurring in most other jurisdictions and we are probably following the leader a little in this national response to the crisis.
While the problem is certainly serious and clear regarding the insurance premiums, the root of the problem is not clear. Is it caused simply by the awards handed down by the courts, or is it related to the administration and management of the insurance industry? In my personal view, these issues have not been scrutinised sufficiently and they require further analysis.
The opposition intends to hold the government to its explicit pledge, made by the Chief Minister, that these reforms will reduce the cost of public liability premiums. The Northern Territory people will be able to call the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General to account at the next election in a little over two years time. I suspect that the issue of public liability insurance and the issues of access to justice will be issues which will be persuasive in some quarters of our community.
I am indebted to Hon Chris Hartcher, the Shadow Attorney-General in New South Wales and the member for Gosford. They have gone through this debate and this process, so I am indebted to some of the feedback I received from him, on the phone and in person at a meeting we had, regarding what he said in parliament.
This type of legislation has been described as radical legislation that affects the rights of injured people. There is a little overlap with the second part of this legislation that I will talk about, but I will come back to why it is relevant to this. Anybody in our community can be injured and, if that injury occurs through no fault of another, that person has, in my view, a legitimate right, a legitimate claim. Legislation which drastically alters those rights by affecting that person’s capacity to engage a legal practitioner or someone to represent them should be closely looked at.
The legislation is not something that should be viewed in isolation. There needs to be some evidence put - perhaps by the Attorney-General in response to what we are saying this morning - as to how these changes will affect the cost of public liability insurance and why they are going to fall. We have to take a rational approach to the concept of injury compensation. A government simply reacting once the crisis is upon us is probably not the most appropriate way to go.
It seems the situation has developed in the insurance industry for many years and criticism applies to this government, and many other governments. It seems that governments wait for a crisis to occur and then respond rather than taking on board the numerous warning signs and dealing with the matter in a more systematic way. There is no way a Labor government up here can say they were taken by surprise. It has been coming for a long time.
The government’s irresponsible and cavalier handling of lawyers’ fees is something which is of concern to the profession, and I hear a couple of jibes about: ‘Well, who cares about the profession and lawyers, blah, blah, blah?’ But ultimately, the government, by this type of legislation, implicitly seems to blame lawyers across the board for the premium crisis. The fact is, as the Attorney-General is aware and his advisors no doubt have told him, of course, lawyers simply represent people in court; they act on behalf of injured parties. Unless they are approached by such parties, no legal case can be instituted. Lawyers do not manufacture these injuries. They are real injuries caused to real people; there is real suffering. In a civilised society, injured parties must receive real recompense.
The Martin Labor government’s continued attempts to blame lawyers by playing around with lawyers’ fees, treating the submissions - well, I have not seen the specific written submissions from the Law Society Northern Territory but I have read the article which appeared in the most recent issue of Balance. If the specific submissions from the Law Society are anything like the outline contained in the president’s column in the March issue of Balance, it seems the submissions were not taken on board or, certainly, given much weight. In fact, this type of legislation, promoted by a government ultimately with a noble goal, tends to create a community versus the legal profession mentality, and that is patently false and incorrect.
Whilst on the point of the article contained in the March edition of Balance, I know that a number of lawyers have made their feelings known to the Law Society. Ultimately, the president is an elected representative of that body and his view could be fairly taken to be the view of a majority of the lawyers, or certainly the plaintiff lawyers anyway. The article talks about not only the Legal Practitioners Amendment (Costs and Advertising) Bill 2003, but also goes on to talk about the next bill, the Personal Injuries (Civil Claims) Bill, which I will talk about in a moment. The bill currently before parliament seems to make it illegal for practitioners to actually encourage people to take action by publishing a recommendation which could fairly be said to recommend the institution of legal proceedings. That is at page 3 of the President’s column, in that third column. The Law Society does, in fairness, say that the bill has a brighter side and that it does empower the Law Society to make rules as to advertising, and also to deal with disputes concerning conditional costs agreements. Presently, the Law Society does not have that. This bill is going to give them that capacity.
There are reservations. The government is dealing with this particular problem in a piecemeal fashion. From a legal profession’s perspective and from the plaintiff lawyers I have spoken to, they simply will not act for people in speculative matters. Ultimately, the loser will be members of the Northern Territory community. The Law Society is fairly proactive. They talk about it being ‘borrowed’ politics, which ‘… will create a large segment of disaffected people who will eventually, after some years, if the current government lasts that long, even up the scales when it counts the most’. That is …
A member interjecting.
Mr MALEY: I am quoting directly from the Law Society here. They are fairly strong words from the society, but, quite frankly, that is a sentiment which rings true and is a fair and just warning to the current government.
There are a number of amendments which are going to be made to the Legal Practitioners Amendment (Costs and Advertising) Bill. These are amendments, notice of which was given at the eleventh hour. I have had a cursory look at them. It is not my area of expertise and I have not had the chance to talk to members of the profession about that.
A member interjecting.
Mr MALEY: Yes, I bet you can. I appreciate, in fairness to the government, I was given a copy of the notes which were prepared for the Attorney-General which he is going to read.
A member interjecting.
Mr MALEY: Very generous, very generous. There may be some more specific comments in the committee stage, but I can indicate, reluctantly, the opposition will not be opposing the passage of this bill.
______________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: While the Deputy Chief Minister is moving to the lectern, I welcome the students from Elliott, who have come in their very colourful shirts this morning. On behalf of all members, a warm welcome to you. Or, should I say, it is a cold welcome, isn’t it?
I also advise the students and members of the gallery we are in legislation at the moment. We are debating a bill and these are the second reading speeches that members make to the bill. Then, when we have all our second reading speeches finished, we will then go into committee to discuss the amendments. This is a piece of legislation being passed in the parliament.
________________________
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the Legal Practitioners Amendment (Costs and Advertising) Bill. The Legal Practitioners Amendment (Costs and Advertising) Bill implements commitments made by the Northern Territory government at the National Insurance ministers’ meeting on the public liability insurance held on 30 May 2002.
The bill provides for the regulation of advertising and legal costs in the Territory. It ensures that the Law Society is able to make professional rules of conduct concerning advertising, and ensures that restrictions on legal fees can be prescribed by regulations following national consideration of further public consultation. The Attorney-General will provide further information on those provisions shortly.
Although these reform measures may not have a significant impact on premiums, they are another step in increasing certainty for insurers, and improving the availability and affordability of insurance. I thank the opposition for their support. The member did say they were reluctant to support, but I do urge support from the opposition. This bill is just one small part of a total raft of measures and reforms being passed in all jurisdictions. I guess the message from those ministerial councils where these have been discussed is that it is necessary for all jurisdictions to try to bring a measure of consistency, if not uniformity, to the measures being passed in each jurisdiction. Otherwise, one jurisdiction not coming to the table and passing the reforms consistent with the others would be left wide open in the weight of litigation coming through their jurisdiction, which they simply would not be able to withstand. Insurance ministers and the Commonwealth have worked closely toward getting that consistency on each of the measures.
The obvious question that was posed in part by the opposition spokesman was: how did this happen, and are any of the measures working? Regarding whether they are working, the Insurance Council themselves maintain very strongly that at least capital has remained in the insurance market, and more will come in as they gather and understand more certainty in the market, as the measures begin to take effect. There will always be a time lag between jurisdictions passing legislative reforms and the impact in the market. However, the Insurance Council is saying at least there are companies there offering these products and, in some cases, you are now getting a choice. Simply left alone, and if no jurisdiction had done anything about it, it is likely that we would have seen a mass desertion of capital from the Australian insurance industry overall. If you look at it in global terms, Australia is a very small part of the global insurance market; the Northern Territory is a tiny part of the Australian market itself. Nonetheless, we feel obliged to work with all the other jurisdictions to try to get these measures in place.
At what point the desired effect - that is, to reduce premiums - actually takes place remains to be seen. No one could put a date on it. But, at least insurance companies and the Insurance Council of Australia is under no illusion that they are under notice. They are under notice by every government in Australia, because the governments have taken the time and the work, and driven their drafters to get these reforms in place - not to please the insurance companies, but to see that much desired improvement in premiums.
The other question the opposition spokesperson asked was: how did this all come about? That is a fair question and many people asked it. In the first instance, you need look no further than the collapse of HIH and the disgraceful way that that company was brought to its knees - in part by mismanagement because they led the market, because they were offering unsustainable premiums which, of course, drew many players to them because they were undercutting the market forcing all other companies in Australia, if they wanted to offered these products, to also reduce their premiums below levels of sustainability in the market. When you continue to do that for many years as HIH did - notwithstanding the fact that they were ripped off by filthy grubs who are yet to have their day in court. I hope they go to gaol. I hope some of these people go to gaol because that is where they belong. They saw the end coming, and they ripped this company apart. I do not blame the head man himself necessarily for that; it all got a bit beyond him in the end. But we need look no further, in the first instance, than the collapse of a massive company like HIH which was such a strong market leader.
Eventually, if you have a period of offering premiums that are completely unsustainable in the market due to the costs coming out the other end, you have to have a market correction, and that is what happened. Of course, we in the Northern Territory have and continue to feel the impact of the collapse of HIH and that subsequent market correction.
In addition to the collapse of HIH, insurance itself is a cyclical industry generally over a period of about seven years. The collapse of HIH coincided with the latter part of that steep end of the cycle, probably about the fifth or five-and-a-half year mark of the seven-year cycle. So you had a double effect in terms of insurance premiums having to climb very rapidly in order to get the market back to a position of sustainability.
I said we are a blip in the national insurance scene, as is Australia in the global insurance scene. Nonetheless, we have an obligation and we will meet that obligation and responsibility to work with our colleagues, to restore certainty - and it is that question of certainty that insurance companies want to see. As the measures take effect across Australia, as we establish greater certainty in terms of outcomes for insurers, more capital will come into the market, more insurance companies will come back into the market, and premiums will then be driven down as a result of that competition. But it has to be competition based on sustainability and based on premiums that will protect the insurer and make sure they get a profit at one end, but also protect all those who are seeking insurance.
Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support of the bill. No matter how reluctant it is, we do appreciate that support and thank them for it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I would like to make a few comments, and I suppose I am reiterating what was said in a previous debate on a similar bill.
The objects of the Personal Injuries Act - I know we are dealing with two bills together here, but this act says that the …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: The objects, I presume, are the same for both bills. There are no objects written in …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: You can tell me whether the object is the same or not, but it says here:
- … to provide for the economical and early resolution of claims for damages for personal injuries
before proceedings are commenced; to authorise the making of rules to regulate the procedures to
be followed in relation to those claims; and provide for the commencement of proceedings in
respect of unresolved claims and to limit costs awarded in these proceedings and for related purposes.
I presume that applies to both acts. What I was saying, minister, is that when you were giving your second reading speech, I believe you mentioned this was part of a comprehensive reform program which was aimed at the increasing cost problems and reduced availability of public indemnity insurance, and that basically you were seeking to put this legislation before our parliament to try and reduce costs. The Chief Minister mentioned yesterday that since the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading bill had been passed, there had been some slight reduction in the price of insurance. The member for Araluen raised this issue at the last debate. Until we see some reduction, then we really do not know whether these changes are going to affect public indemnity insurance. I know it is still very high. For instance, for me to sit for two days at the Fred’s Pass Show is going to cost me about $345.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: I know! I know all these people come up and throw things at me, but it seems an awful lot of money for two days sitting at a show. The proof of the pudding in all this legislation, which is fairly complex, will be whether the ordinary Joe Blow and Mrs Blow actually have a reduction in the cost of their insurance. I quoted before, in the previous debate, the amounts of profits that certain insurance companies are now taking. It is all very well, I suppose, to talk about HIH, but certainly there are some insurance companies doing very well. It would be good if the minister comes back in 12 months time and shows us a comparison of public indemnity charges and other insurance charges. Then we can see, by passing all this legislation, whether something has been attained.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I support the government’s ongoing response to the crisis within the insurance industry. The purpose of this bill, the Legal Practitioners Amendment (Costs and Advertising) Bill, is to ensure appropriate advertising by legal practitioners concerning certain matters and to also clarify the law regarding cost agreements. The member for Nelson was talking about the objects of the bill before, and I would like to go into what this bill provides.
It provides for: the disclosure of costs by legal practitioners to their clients; for the regulation of conditional costs agreements and further clarification of the current provisions in the act concerning other cost agreements; for the regulation of premiums imposed in conditional costs agreements; for the prohibition of agreements by which a legal practitioner receives a percentage of a damages award; restrictions on advertising in respect of personal injury claims; prohibitions against touting in respect of certain situations; for the making of professional conduct rules by the Law Society Northern Territory in respect of matters incidental to advertising; and for the Law Society Northern Territory to share with the Supreme Court the power to deal with disputes regarding costs.
This bill is for the many, not the few, which I am proud to say is a hallmark of the Martin Labor government in regard to its reforming legislative changes. This bill will ensure those who embark on litigation as a result of personal injury are fully aware of the legal costs involved. There were some concerns raised by the member for Goyder about the perceptions of the community in regard to this bill and how they would view the legal fraternity. This bill is not designed, nor should anyone read into it, a desire to somehow disadvantage or denigrate the fine work undertaken by members of our Territory legal fraternity and ensuring the maximum protection for the individual under law. This bill will actually give a level of protection to lawyers from any future accusations of ambulance chasing or, as it is less colloquially known, touting. Which, I might add, is not a feature to be found in the Northern Territory at this time.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr KIELY: Indeed, while talking about touts, member for Araluen, in some other jurisdictions there is ample anecdotal material regarding ambulance chasing but this has not been the case in the Northern Territory to date. If the member for Araluen had read the Law Society’s remarks on this, she would have found that was their position and this is an organisation you should be dealing with quite often. The shadow Attorney-General would not have a clue so I suggest she gets some briefings, or does not put in.
However, in the absence of any restraint, such allegations or activities might well occur in the Northern Territory. This government believes it is appropriate to legislate to protect that position, that is why section 130AE of the bill before the House today is worthy of special mention. Section 130AE, Prohibition against touting for potential claimants, has application to persons who are not legal practitioners. This particular section has come in for some criticism from members of the legal profession. One concern raised, I will give the example, is when a family member of a friend may, in emotional situations after accidents, try to comfort an injured person by assuring them that they can sue to recover damages. It was thought that such activity could be seen as being in breach of section 130AE. However, section 130AE is primarily aimed at relationships between lawyers seeking access to potential claimants, and those who might have contact with the injured persons as a result of their employment - police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital staff, ambulance personnel, fire officers, rescue staff and tow truck operators who might attend at accident scenes.
There can be little disagreement with the view that such conduct ought to be discouraged. Such conduct may be distressing for the injured person or could distract the professional from strict attention to their task. It also promotes a culture of secret commissions which are, at best, inappropriate, or at worst, illegal and introduce an element of corruption.
I have sought and obtained briefings from the Attorney-General’s office on this particular point. I have discussed the pros and cons of section 130AE as it is now laid down. I am pleased to say that a committee stage amendment has been flagged for that part of the bill. Section 130AA will be amended to provide that this part of the act, including section 130AE, will not apply in relation to statements about making a claim for damages for personal injury or using the services of a lawyer in connection with making such a claim that are made by a person holding an office; in the course of carrying out the duties and functions of that office; or that they are made by a prescribed person. It is intended that the persons who might be prescribed include relatives of an injured person and those who provide general advice on such matters in the course of their duties; for example, volunteers at community legal centres. The inclusion of this amendment will clearly bring about a needed contrast between unsolicited touting and providing a public awareness program, or advising an individual about his or her legal entitlements arising from a specific incident.
Like so many other Territorians, I have had cause to employ a lawyer from time to time …
Ms Carney: Oh, really?
Mr KIELY: And, Madam Speaker, let me say that I know quality when I see it, and there are certainly a couple of lawyers around here I would never take business to. I always go to the one practice where I am comfortable with the level of service and professionalism of the firm involved. However, the last time I used this practice, I was presented with an account far beyond my expectations based on my previous dealings. It transpired that over the intervening years between my need to use the services of this practice, the fee payable had risen. After a little research, I found that there were mechanisms in place to have an account review. I requested such a review and, after a few exchanges of correspondence, the account was amended to everyone’s satisfaction.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr KIELY: How much easier it would have been for me and my lawyer if we had both taken the trouble to work out what the charges for service would have been in advance. How many other people, I thought to myself, who, after going through the traumas of the litigation process, find themselves heavily in debt for sums they had not anticipated and for which they had not fully budgeted? You may make light of that situation, member for Araluen, but there are people here who would fall for that.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: Oh no, she is making light of her constituents and light of the profession which she has gladly left.
I am pleased to say, that this intended legislation before for us today will address this type of situation. People will know in future just how much good, quality legal representation - as adverse to the stuff provided by the member for Araluen - is anticipated, the cost. I refer specifically to section 118 of the bill, Costs to be Disclosed. This particular section of the bill requires that, as soon as practicable after a legal practitioner accepts instructions to undertake work of a professional nature for a person, the legal practitioner must provide the person with a written statement of the cost of the work to be undertaken. Currently, the principle of professional conduct as set out in section 44(1)(d) of the Legal Practitioners Act, provides the cost of charge on a professional basis, but the act does not control costs. There is a remedy available to clients who believe they may have been charged excessively, as I alluded to in the retelling of my own experiences, but this bill improves the situation for clients. It sets out an obligation on legal practitioners to provide to clients a written statement of proposed costs.
It is also worthy of mention that section 129A of the bill deals with the current level of uncertainty within the community as to the situations where a conditional costs agreement is permitted. Conditional costs agreements may relate to any proceedings in a court or tribunal, except for criminal proceedings or proceedings under the Commonwealth Family Law Act or any other proscribed proceedings.
Finally, I draw to the House’s attention one last section of this bill which I found extremely interesting. That is to do with the practice of payment of a premium for the provision of legal services. In the report provided to the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General by the Northern Territory Tort Law Reform working group, there is a very good explanation of how and when premiums for legal services come into effect, and I would like to share the clarity of this explanation with my fellow members:
- A substantial proportion of injured persons cannot afford to pay for legal advice and the preparation
necessary to properly mount a damages claim for personal injury. Quite often, the injured person has
suffered a loss or reduction of earnings and has incurred unexpected hospital, medical and rehabilitation
expenses. Additionally, there is only very limited access to legal aid for such claims, so claimants need to
either borrow funds to meet the legal and related expenses, or to come to an agreement with the lawyer to
defer the payment, or to make it contingent upon an agreed outcome.
If conditional costs agreements did not exist, then, in the absence of a dramatic increase in legal aid funding,
access to compensation for personal injury sustained through the fault of another would be limited to the
wealthy. In conditional costs agreements, the claimant is usually not required to meet the ongoing
professional costs of the lawyer until the successful conclusion of the claim. This means that the lawyer
might work for a long period of time, often some years in strongly contested claims, without any payment,
and no payment at all if the contested claim is lost.
To balance the greatly increased financial risk, the lawyer seeks the chance of a higher payment than would
be the case if the claimant had agreed to pay the lawyer’s normal costs as and when they were incurred.
The difference between the lawyer’s normal costs and the conditional higher payments is known as the
‘uplift factor’.
I went through this outline because I was not aware of this uplift factor and how it worked. It is incumbent upon us here in this place to ensure, to the best of our ability, that the community fully understands what we are doing and why when it comes to making or amending law.
When I first heard of this uplift fee, I was concerned that it was some sort of greedy imposition on clients who are trapped into this payment as the only way of obtaining legal assistance. However, I can now see that the lawyer can carry considerable debt for some time and should, therefore, be remunerated appropriately. I view the uplift fee as little different from the interest you would have to pay a money lender - sometimes a greedy, money-grabbing, little money lender - if you were to take out a loan to pay for legal service. Arguably, depending on the percentage required of the uplift fee, it is, indeed, probably a better deal.
This is the point about the uplift premiums: when does the percentage of the uplift change from being a good deal for all parties to one that is dramatically skewed in favour of the person providing the service? I am aware that in the Northern Territory there is a wide range of uplift factor premiums applied. I have heard of some lawyers charging 20% and some lawyers charging 100% on the base figure from which uplifts or premiums are calculated.
This government believes, in all fairness to those most vulnerable, that some rigour has to be applied to the application of the uplift factor. Our law provides that regulations can be made governing the premium or uplift that a legal practitioner can require of his or her clients. Such limitations can only be imposed when the conditional costs agreement provides that no cost or only limited costs are payable if the claimant’s action does not reach an agreed level of success. The amount of uplift to be included in the regulations will be developed in discussions with the legal profession over the coming weeks.
I have learnt quite a lot about personal liability law since assisting the member for Stuart to introduce these reforms in parliament - reforms that, once again, showcase the Martin Labor government’s ability to create laws to benefit the many, not just the few. Our reforms are about protecting our lifestyle, which, for too long, under the old, tired CLP government, was ignored to the detriment of our proud community.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
____________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: While the minister is making his way to the microphone, I welcome another group of students from Our Lady Sacred Heart College today. On behalf of all members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
____________________________
Madam SPEAKER: The minister has promised he will speak up.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): I have gone to the two microphones here, Madam Speaker. I think that might do the trick.
First, I thank the members for their contributions to the debate and for the support that the opposition has indicated for this legislation, however reluctant and balanced between the Law Society’s opinion and other people’s opinion. We were doing a bit of a ‘two positions in one statement’ there.
This is part of a package of reforms that we introduced in respect of the public liability crisis in Australia. That translates, as it has been quite properly pointed out, to many of our institutions, particularly community bodies of small scale that are finding it increasingly difficult to operate with the lack of affordable cover for public activities within our community. When that is impacting on our sporting clubs, church societies, a range of organisations and events that have become part of the Territory lifestyle, it is absolutely crucial that we do what ever we can do to alleviate the current problems.
To give another example, one of the charitable organisations in town here had managed to raise $3500 in their 12 months of cake stalls and other fundraising; $1500 of that went to their public liability cover, so they are really working for the insurance company for half of the money they raise. That is a terrible situation and no government can see that going on and not try to do something.
I share the member for Goyder’s position on seeing what the insurance industry does about this. At the national forums that I attend, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, there is still concern amongst the Attorneys-General about what responses we are actually going to get from the insurance industry. That is certainly a point that we are going to have to scrutinise very strongly. The federal government has undertaken to get their regulatory authorities to have dialogue with the insurers and insist on some response. There is no doubt that the package of measures provides greater certainty as to the level of claims and the likely outcome of claims on average across each of the jurisdictions. That alone should provide insurance companies with a better market to operate in. We would expect that they would show responsibility to the community that they draw the business from, and do as much as they can to alleviate the increases in premiums we have seen in recent times and the reduction of the areas of community activities that they have been prepared to cover.
We have a particular situation here in the Northern Territory in that 50% of our public liability insurance is carried by the Territory Insurance Office. That gives us some hope that, by dialogue between TIO and the Territory government, we can try to translate the reforms that we have brought forward into some response from TIO on the area of the market that they are covering. We will certainly be working on that. I can assure the shadow minister that we share your concerns that the insurance industry has to respond and be made to respond to the degree that we can influence them, and that is certainly ongoing work beyond the reforms we have brought in.
The other thing I would like to say at the level that you contributed to the debate, that we are very aware of the fact that we have to protect the coverage - particularly the least advantaged people in our communities - for public liability matters. We do not want to see the conditional agreements go out. We want to make sure that the cost structures and so on that have come in as part of these reforms are not going to exclude claims out of the action of these insurance matters. In most cases, it is fair to say that the initial reform package, the outline that we were presented with post-COAG - the meeting that drew together the broad outlines of a national reform package - we would certainly very markedly change, in many cases, the detail of the initial proposals. We felt that it unfairly impacted on the Northern Territory, or that it had not considered our particular sectional interest within the Northern Territory. While we have consistency of approach, some of the reforms we brought in, in the previous two bills to this one, are being looked at with great interest by other jurisdictions, particularly our use of the medical impairment model for personal injuries, a much more objective system than has been introduced in other parts of Australia. We believe we have responded to the interests of Northern Territory people in the best way that we can within the options that we have in what is a very difficult situation.
I also put on record my defence of the legal community in the Northern Territory. You have not heard me getting out in public bagging lawyers or saying that this is all the fault of lawyers. The vast majority of our lawyers in the Northern Territory are very professional and very ethical about what they do. I have certainly, at all times, tried not to have an undue impact on the legal profession by the reforms we are bringing in.
However, the lawyers in the Northern Territory, along with everyone else, have to understand that this is a difficult situation. It is one that is challenging a lot of the fundamental activities that have contributed to the lifestyle we value so much here in the Territory. Sometimes, sectional interests have to be measured against the common interests of the community. To whatever extent we achieve that balance, we will do that by continuing to talk to people like the Law Society, the Bar Association, any other plaintiff lawyers, any of the other groups that represent the opinion of our lawyers, and will make sure that their opinions are fully considered.
The shadow minister also called attention to what analysis has been brought into the potential effect of these reforms. You are probably aware that Trowbridge did an analysis in the Territory context about the potential impact on the claim levels and claim size of the different options that were brought forward. We had the advice of not only that initial document and analysis, but we also had a further analysis done to look at the medical impairment model and other aspects that we were considering for the bills.
We have also seen, at the national level, quite significant studies on negligence by retired Justice Ipp, and also some quite extensive studies by the Treasurers through their network. Therefore, there is analysis there. The only thing we cannot predict is what the global reinsurance market is going to do. We are taking about budgets much bigger than the Australian budget in the amount of global capital that those reinsurers are handling. They are the ones that our insurance companies go to, to set their financial situation.
We have certainly had some early undertakings from TIO that we will see, at least, a levelling off of premiums and they will certainly look at re-extending coverage as much as possible out into the community.
In looking at the other issue of making the legal practitioners recommend action, the bill in no way seeks to interfere with what a lawyer advises a client. It does prohibit advertisements from being published, as defined in section 130AB, as being to the world at large in magazines, on TV and radio, on Internet sites, billboards, and handsheets placed under car wipers. In terms of giving advice as to what action should be taken, lawyer to client, there is no prohibition inherent in the bill that we will be debating today.
They are the main remarks I want to make, and with that, we will move to the committee stage, Madam Speaker, after lunch, perhaps.
Madam SPEAKER: We might go into committee in a moment. See how we go.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam SPEAKER: We will move into committee now. I am not sure how quickly we might get through this, but the Committee Chairman can break for lunch.
I remind honourable members that there is a community barbecue put on by the Town Council on the lawns during the lunch break. Committee Chairman, would you come in.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together agreed to.
Clause 7:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 39.1. Clause 7 provides a replacement set of definitions for the purposes of Part X of the Legal Practitioners Act. One of these definitions is of the term ‘legal practitioner’. Currently, the bill defines ‘legal practitioner’ so that it does not include persons who choose to specialise as counsel. However, many of the provisions in the expanded Part X deal with disclosures about costs, disputes about costs and limitations on the kinds of agreements about costs that are lawful. They are provisions that should apply as a general rule to all legal practitioners. Accordingly, this amendment changes the definition of ‘legal practitioner’ so that it now covers all legal practitioners. Counsel and other advocates, to the extent that they do not deal with the public, will be excluded by way of regulation made under the proposed new section 118B(5)(b).
It should be noted that this change to the definition of ‘legal practitioner’ does not and is not intended to affect the operation of current sections 119 to 129 of the Legal Practitioners Act. These sections do not apply to counsel because counsel do not recover fees directly from clients, but rather from the solicitors instructed by those clients.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 39.2. Currently, the definition of ‘legal practitioner’ in the proposed section 118A also applies to legal practitioners who have an Unrestricted Practising Certificate. As mentioned with the previous amendment, most of the provisions of Part X should apply to all legal practitioners who are involved in actions for the recovery of costs. Accordingly, this amendment amends the definition so that it will also include employed legal practitioners who practice under Restricted Practising Certificates.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 39.3. Currently, the proposed new section 118B(5) sets out various classes of persons who are not bound to comply with the disclosure of costs requirements set out in section 118B. This amendment sets out that counsel may be exempted by regulation from costs disclosure provisions. Such a regulation will be made prior to the commencement of the legislation.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended. agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 39.4. Proposed section 129C makes it an offence for a legal practitioner to enter into a costs agreement if, amongst other things, the amount of legal costs payable varies according to the amount that is recovered.
Arguably, this section reads as if it is prohibiting agreements by which a party agrees to pay fees as determined in accordance with the scales of costs made under the rules of courts. Such scales may provide the costs payable vary, depending upon the size of the amounts recovered. This is not the intention of section 129C. This amendment makes this intention clear by providing that the section does not prevent such agreements.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 39.5. Proposed section 129H provides that a party to a costs agreement may apply to the Supreme Court or Law Society Northern Territory for a review of the agreement. Section 129H(2) provides that the applications must be in a form prescribed by regulation. This amendment removes that reference as regards the court.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 39.6. Consequent to the previous amendments, this amendment provides that applications to the court must comply with Court Rules.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 39.7. Part XA regulates advertising and associated matters concerning personal injuries. Section 130AA sets out various types of advertising and other matters that are not affected by Part XA. This amendment makes it clear that Part XA does not prevent persons holding official positions from providing assistance in respect of the performance of their duties. The holders of such positions may occupy statutory positions, such as that of the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, or some other official capacity such as holders of consular offices.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 39.8. Proposed section 130AB provides definitions for the purpose of Part XA. Currently, the proposed section does not contain a definition of ‘legal practitioner’. This means that the term is used having the meaning contained in section 6 of the Legal Practitioners Act. This is inappropriate because it does not cover all legal practitioners who practice in the Northern Territory. This amendment inserts a broad definition of legal practitioner.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: For members of the gallery’s benefit, that means that we have just passed that item of legislation this morning. We will continue with other legislation this afternoon.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of students from Alice Springs High School. On behalf of all members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: For the information of the students, we are now going into our second piece of legislation for the day. Members speaking at this stage are delivering what is called a second reading speech.
PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVIL CLAIMS) BILL
(Serial 137)
(Serial 137)
Continued from 27 February 2003.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, from the outset I indicate that the opposition will not be opposing the passing of this legislation. We do have some concerns about the medium to long-term effect of the bill but, ultimately, time will be the best yardstick to determine what effect it is going to have on this raft of reforms that all come in the scope of the tort law reform package.
We are also mindful of the concerns raised by the Law Society Northern Territory, and are even more concerned about the effect the bill may have on every individual’s right to have access to justice and legal advice.
The Attorney-General prepared a second reading speech and went through it diligently when this matter was last considered before this parliament. After reading that second reading speech, one would be forgiven for thinking that the working group that was formed and established in October 2002 - the Tort Law Reform Legal Process Group – supported, in a general way, the bill. There are vague references to some recommendations being accepted and some recommendations not being accepted. It seems the general tone of that second reading speech is misleading if you can have any regard to what appears in the March edition of Balance, the Law Society journal, in its commentary on the proposed bill. There was a fair deal of canvassing amongst solicitors, mainly the personal injuries section of the profession, and the Plaintiff Lawyers Association. However, in a nutshell, the current President of the Law Society made it fairly clear where he and the Law Society stood in relation to this particular bill.
Probably the best way to outline the opposition’s concerns to this particular piece of legislation is to go through some real life examples of how Northern Territory people could be potentially adversely affected by this piece of legislation. There are some rules which are yet to be drafted and are not in existence so we are playing hypotheticals to an extent. However, there is a mechanism whereby, depending upon the award of costs given to a certain individual in a civil claim before the formal award was made, if there were offers made by the plaintiff party or the defendant party - depending on where that award falls - having regard to those previous offers, it will affect the capacity for that person to recover their legal costs.
I will quote what the President of the Law Society had to say. He says an estimate of what the lower range would be is about $30 000. He goes on to state:
- There are three levels of cost: below the defendant’s final offer, above the claimant’s final offer, and in
between. Only if the claimant is more successful than they offered will they be able to collect the bounty of
25% of their legal fees. On my calculation that means that at best the claimant would be able to recover
costs at 20% of the Supreme Court scale, or $36 per hour.
Madam Speaker and honourable members, you would be aware that for $36 an hour, you would be lucky to get a motor mechanic in Darwin to do work on your car.
He goes on to give an example of what happens if an award is made which is above that limit:
- Above that limit and the successful claimant can get back 25% of their legal fees if they get more than the
defendant’s final offer or 50% of the claimant’s final offer.
The effect of the legislation is not clear in terms of what is going to occur in the medium to long term, but it is something which is going to be the subject of some monitoring. There are some law firms that have now undertaken to keep statistics, I understand, about what clients they send away: ‘It is simply not economical to act for you, therefore we are not going to act as your solicitor’. The only casualty will be, as an example, seniors who cannot afford, in some situations, paying the - I withdraw that.
Probably a better way to look at it is if you have a senior citizen who goes into the casino and slips and breaks a hip. Under the regime as it existed prior to this bill, the casino would be aware that if there is water on the floor, there should be signs saying it is wet, and if they are extra conscious of their insurance premiums they have to be careful to make sure that their patrons are not hurt. For example, if my mother, whom I take to lunch every couple of weeks - and she likes to go the casino for a flutter - fell over and hurt her hip, and that claim is worth $16 000 or $20 000. If she did not have a son who was happy to help her out with her legal assistance, she would be hard pressed to find a solicitor to give her a hand in securing compensation for the pain and suffering that she would have endured.
It is one of those situations where the pressure on companies and some of the usual sources of personal injury has been taken from them to do the right thing. However, ultimately, we are hoping that they continue to do the right thing and premiums will just come down because there will be fewer claims because people, quite frankly, will not be able to afford to proceed into court.
We are playing hypotheticals once again and there are only a limited number of claims to which the legislation applies. There are a number of exemptions the Attorney-General referred to in his second reading speech and which are contained in section 5 of the act. The act does not apply to claims under the Work Health Act, dust-related conditions, etcetera.
The type of people who will probably fall to be most disadvantaged are those who do not qualify for one of those non-means tested legal aid organisations like NAALAS or CAALAS, or the equivalents. The Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission is significantly underfunded when compared to the Aboriginal equivalents, of course. You certainly would not get any help from the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission unless there were extenuating circumstances, I suspect, for a personal injuries matter, particularly if it is an injury less than about $30 000. Therefore, that sort of middle class Territorian will be potentially disadvantaged by this legislation.
But the government, as I said in my comments on the last legislation, does have an obligation to do what it can to try to lower premiums. This is part of the tort law reform package and the opposition, albeit reluctantly once again, will not be opposing the passage of this bill, but we will be keeping a careful eye on it.
This parliament and the people of Alice Springs are very fortunate to have a very good representative in the member for Araluen, Jodeen Carney, in that in her previous life she had a great deal of experience with personal injuries and this type of legal matters. The opposition will be making some very specific comments about some particular provisions of this legislation through my colleague’s comments.
Madam Speaker, the opposition will not be opposing the passing of the bill.
__________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I need to correct what I said a bit earlier. The students who are arriving now are from Alice Springs High School. The students who are already here are from ANZAC Hill High School. So, on behalf of everyone, I extend you a welcome. I should not get mixed up, should I?
__________________________
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Personal Injuries (Civil Claims) Bill. This bill is another important part, as we saw this morning, of the Territory’s legislative response to the insurance problems being experienced right across Australia and no less here in the Northern Territory. This legislative package is an important part of the national reform effort to improve the affordability and availability of liability insurance. We are all aware that the Territory community has been adversely affected by the current insurance problems. The first to feel the effects were small business, community groups, and recreational service providers, particularly tourist and sporting activities. Then it was local doctors and specialists who experienced difficulties in obtaining affordable medical indemnity insurance cover. More recently, it has been the professions, the accountants, the auditors, the engineers, the architects and the lawyers.
For the national reform measures to have an effect on insurance premiums, it is essential that every jurisdiction play its part in implementing the national reform measures. The Territory is doing its bit to meet its national commitment to insurance reform, but we are doing it in a manner that we think is particularly appropriate for the Territory. As part of the Territory’s legislative response earlier this year, the Territory government enacted the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act and the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Amendment Act. The measures contained in those acts intended to provide a balance between protecting the interests of injured persons, and at the same time improving the community’s access to affordable insurance cover. The Territory is committed to this nationally consistent approach to legislative reform.
As I flagged earlier this year, we will soon put forward a draft discussion bill outlining the Territory’s response to the core recommendations of the Ipp Review of the law of negligence. In doing so, the Territory government will continue to consult with insurers, the legal and medical professions, business, and other members of the community regarding these proposed reforms. In the meantime, the Territory will continue to cooperate with the Commonwealth and the states to ensure that the benefits generated by these legislative reforms will flow through to consumers in the form of lower premiums. At the most recent meeting of insurance ministers in April of this year, Senator Coonan, who chairs that body, reiterated that the Commonwealth would review the extent of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s powers if it becomes clear that those cost savings are not being passed on to consumers. We are now awaiting the release of the ACCC’s next price monitoring report, expected in June of this year.
The Territory government does appreciate the difficulties and particular nuances associated with the application of the insurance-related legislative reforms in the Territory. For this reason, the government delayed the introduction of the Personal Injuries (Civil Claims) Bill and the Legal Practitioners Amendment (Costs and Advertising) Bill, to refer these bills to a working group for a period of consultation and fine tuning. We believe it is absolutely critical that we get such reforms appropriate for the Territory. While the reforms contained in the Personal Injuries (Civil Claims) Bill make intuitive sense from a legal perspective, they are also a specific response to current insurance problems. The Personal Injuries (Civil Claims) Bill encourages the early resolution of claims by providing policy direction and mechanisms to assist the Supreme Court in making rules for all Territory courts in areas such as pre-litigation notices of claim, exchange of evidence, compulsory conferencing, mandatory exchange of offers, and legal cost incentives. The Attorney-General will provide further details on those provisions shortly.
Early resolution is desirable, as it should make litigation processes shorter and more efficient in transaction and management costs for all parties to proceedings. As it would allow for earlier investigation, claims management and litigation, it would also provide for fairer decisions and reduce the level of uncertainty currently faced by insurers. That, in itself, is the biggest stumbling block to getting more insurers into the market and getting lower and fairer premiums. These measures may not have a significant immediate impact, but they are another important step, along with the other reforms to improving the availability and affordability of liability insurance.
In closing, I want to pick up the hypothetical put forward by the shadow Attorney-General in talking about his mum, and I have a quick piece of advice. If she was to receive in the order of some $16 000 to $20 000 - I think he quoted as an example; perhaps you may have used a better example - the lawyer would get 50% of the Supreme Court rate. At that, I am told, she would have no problem in the market in Darwin, if it was a Darwin case, of getting legal coverage. We need to be very careful of quoting hypotheticals and, perhaps, using mum as an example with the figures. The fact that the shadow Attorney-General stands here and says it does not make it right. I would certainly have anything he said tested before I took it as gospel.
I urge the Assembly to support this bill. It is only with all jurisdictions keeping a consistent approach to all of the measures being brought together that we will have an impact, get certainty back into the marketplace, get insurers back in, get capital flowing back into that market, and, I am confident, in the medium to longer term, get those reductions in premiums that everyone is waiting for.
Madam SPEAKER: While the member for Araluen goes to the podium, I was asked at lunch time to explain about the clock on the screen behind me. You can see that it is actually set for the amount of time the member is allowed to speak. In this case it is 30 minutes, and it goes backwards until her 30 minutes expires. Then the red hand will be on the 12. Different parts of the bill have different speech times so that is why you see the variation at the beginning of each speaker.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I first respond to the comments made towards the end of the Treasurer’s speech. Seriously, I disagree. I am not too sure that I am aware of any lawyer in Darwin or, indeed, Alice Springs, who would be willing to work for $72 an hour. That is half of the Supreme Court’s scale. However, we are not here to contemplate how much lawyers make, but I really must place on Hansard my level of disagreement with his comment.
Having said that, I do appreciate and respect where the Treasurer is coming from with this legislation. I understand the difficulties with insurers around the country. However, there is nothing on record anywhere on the part of insurers to say that with the enormous amount of legislation that the state, territory and federal parliaments will pass, that their claims will reduce. Let us make no mistake, this is what all of this legislation is all about. It is an attempt to make life better for a majority of Australians and insurers so that excessive claims are to be discouraged, and that there is money in the kitty at the end of the day.
My concerns, however - and I really hope that they are addressed by the Attorney-General - are that litigants will be disadvantaged. For my part, I never thought that I would see a Labor government bringing in legislation that would disadvantage a number of people. I speak from experience. I have acted for many years for all sorts of people in the areas of personal injuries. It has not been my experience that any of them have been incredibly wealthy, or even terribly well-off. Therefore, I hope that some of the concerns can be addressed.
I will deal with some sections in particular. I cannot help but comment, of course, or remind members that this was the bill that the Attorney-General introduced during the last sittings that he spoke to in some detail, as is evidenced by his second reading speech, but where he forgot some sections of the bill. I am disappointed that the Territory’s first law officer would stand up in the Northern Territory parliament and not check his legislation. However, I am sure that he has learned his lesson. We certainly hope so, because it will avoid further confusion for all of us in due course.
I appreciate we can deal with matters in detail during the committee stage, but I will tag them now so that the Attorney-General and his advisors can begin to give it some thought. The first one is in clause 4, the definition section, where the definition of ‘personal injury’ is outlined. It includes a fatal injury, a pre-natal injury, a psychological or psychiatric injury, a disease, and the aggravation or exacerbation or acceleration of a pre-existing injury or condition. I was very curious that the definition of ‘personal injury’ did not include a ‘physical’ injury. It seems that, on balance, certainly from experience, it is physical personal injuries that most people see lawyers about. I was surprised that that expression ‘physical injury’ was not included in the definitions of this section.
I was also concerned in relation to the definition of ‘medical expert’. The definition of ‘medical expert’ is:
- … a person lawfully practicing in a branch of medicine, psychology, psychiatry, dentistry, pharmacology …
And so on. What was particularly concerning was that the bill, in its present form, does not provide assistance as to who is a medical expert. Given that the bill seeks to overhaul the system of claiming damages, it seems to me that the bill should at least provide some assistance on that point.
The difficulty is illustrated in the following way: Who is an expert? Is it a person who has been practicing in, for instance, psychiatry for 12 months with only 10 patients a year, and who has never written a medical report for medico-legal purposes, or indeed published any papers in any recognised journals; an expert compared with someone who, at the other end of the spectrum, has been in practice for say, 20 years, well respected in their field, published various articles in journals and the author of many medico-legal reports and experienced in giving evidence in medico-legal cases?
The expert status of a witness or otherwise needs to be, and is usually, established by a court, often after cross-examination by the parties’ solicitors. In any case, I was troubled that the bill did not provide any assistance on that point and it does not tell us what is to be done in the event that the parties cannot agree on who is a medical expert. It is a very real concept that needs to be determined and is usually determined in the course of legal proceedings. This legislation is trying to, understandably, short-circuit those proceedings. What happens if the parties cannot agree on who is a medical expert?
In relation to clause 8, I note from the proposed amendments this morning that it has been partly amended, but it does not, in my view, correct a problem based on my reading of the bill. In particular, under clause 8 the applicant is obliged to disclose whether he or she has a claim within a 12 month period from the date of the incident; or a person can make a claim after 12 months provided, in accordance with subclause (3)(a) that the person has:
- … a reasonable reason for the delay and gives that reason in the notice of claim.
The difficulty for me is that there is no definition of what is ‘reasonable’. The only other way a person can sue after a 12 month period is by application to a court, and only if the court grants leave. What this means is that if a court decides, for whatever reason, not to grant leave, the applicant is, on my reading, deprived from pursuing what is a common law right.
That is troubling, and there is nothing in the bill that would give anyone, on my reading of it at least, any comfort in terms of following any principles or any further clarification or definitions in the bill. There is, however, in subclause (4)(a), the statement that a person is taken to have had a reasonable delay if he or she has made a complaint under the Health and Community Services Act. In my view, that is additionally troubling because, from experience, litigants will rarely, if ever, make a complaint under the Health and Community Services Act after they have been to Woolies and slipped on a banana peel. That is the furthest thing from their mind. I get the impression from reading this bill that if a person fails to make a claim - notwithstanding that there is no definition of what is a reasonable reason - under the Health and Community Services Act they are prevented from making a common law claim. That section might, after review of six or 12 months, be able to be improved.
I also note that potential litigants or applicants can only make a claim if they have filed a notice of claim which the bill says is to be in a form prescribed by the rules. There are no rules provided in support of the bill. So, the difficulty in a practical sense is that this parliament is not able to assess the prescribed forms. It is really a lick and a promise - the forms will follow and we just work on the basis that we trust you. I am not sure whether I should pursue that line any further.
In addition, I note that there is apparently no provision for costs to be awarded to a person who makes an application to a court for leave to proceed. If the court at first instance refuses to grant leave, then the applicant, I would have thought, would appeal and, again, there are apparently no provisions to claim costs if that were to occur after a successful appeal. I would be very grateful if the Attorney-General could provide some advice on that. I accept I may be missing something, but I could not see it from the draft bill.
Furthermore, I am troubled - and I know this comes as no surprise to the Attorney-General or, indeed, his advisors and practising solicitors in the Northern Territory – that clause 10 provides that a claimant must provide all information that will enable the respondent to assess liability and quantum. There is, in fact, already a provision to disclose documents in civil proceedings. That is a process called ‘making discovery’ and relevant documents are, in the normal course of events, disclosed. But what makes this proposal fundamentally different is that all documents must be disclosed at the outset. I would have thought that that causes some particular problems. First, it can take years to accumulate the relevant documentary evidence in support of a claim, but the effect of this bill is that everything is to be worked out within a period of 12 months, which often is just not possible. Second, this clause carries with it the real prospect that undue pressure could be placed on an applicant to have their case done and dusted within 12 months. I am not sure that that is especially fair to people who have sustained an injury through the negligence or otherwise of someone else.
In relation to clause 7, notwithstanding that there have been some amendments proposed this morning, I do not think they have been addressed in clauses 7 and 10. Clause 7 states:
- …a person seeking damages for a personal injury is not entitled to commence a proceeding to claim
damages unless he or she has complied with the obligations imposed by or under this Part.
In my view, that means that a claimant, having been obliged to disclose everything to the respondent at first instance, essentially says: ‘Here is all of my evidence on liability and quantum’. If the respondent were to say: ‘We will not settle’, then the matter can only be dealt with by the issuing of legal proceedings. At that point, the parties must go through the pre-court process all over again, which will be a repeat of stages such as discovery, so they will need to rediscover the documentary evidence. The effect of that, it seems to me, is that in very real terms there will be a duplication of costs because that litigant will be represented in both phases; that is, the proposed phase under the bill, and if it is not successful, then the normal stage that would ordinarily follow, the issuing of legal proceedings.
I was disappointed that a piece of legislation that is proposed to short-circuit legal proceedings and make them cheaper and benefit people may, in fact, create a system where lawyers are generating even more costs to go through two processes, whereas now, of course, they only need go through one.
I note that clause 13 has been amended. The Chief Magistrate now is able to make rules for regulating this bill. It is fair to say that many lawyers would regard that as fairly disappointing, because the bill, with the greatest of respect, could have been drafted better. I am not sure that it must entirely fall to the Chief Magistrate to nut out the gaps that I believe emerge from this bill.
In relation to clause 22, I notice that in the second reading speech the Attorney-General said:
The proposals contained in these bills have been subject to considerable debate.
He said that there was widespread consultation and yet, we have all of clause 22 omitted. For my part, I am very pleased to see clause 22 omitted, because it was a mess. So, thank you for that.
In relation to what can only be described as the horror clauses, 18 in relation to costs, I know my colleague, the member for Goyder referred to the article written in the Law Society’s magazine, Balance, of March 2003. These days I am not sure that I am very grateful to the Law Society for much, but I am very grateful for the article that the President of the Law Society wrote, because it is fair to say it was pretty scathing and, if that had any part to play in re-jigging the horror sections of the costs in clauses 18 and some subsequent sections, then I am very pleased. I have not had terribly much time to look at the new way of drafting the costs provisions. From my scant reading they still did not look terrific, but they were better. Thank you for that.
I hope I have been able to illustrate some of the concerns I have in relation to this legislation. Please understand that we appreciate, understand and acknowledge why it is that this government, and all governments in the country, are undertaking this legislative change. However, remember, we are mindful in the opposition that there is no guarantee that these, in a practical sense, will reduce claims. We are concerned that claimants may be disadvantaged. For my part, I would be very grateful if the Attorney-General would perhaps indicate, for the purposes of Hansard, whether he would be open to reviewing this legislation - as it will become legislation - after a period of, say, 12 months, because it is important stuff. It is important that we get it right, not just for the lawyers who practice it but for people who are injured by someone else’s negligence. It is really important that we get it right.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, today I give my continuing full support to the Labor government’s legislative reform package relating to liability for personal injuries. As members may recall, last sittings I spoke in favour of the second instalment of the Territory government’s package of legislative reforms. To recap for people here in Alice Springs visiting parliament for the first time, these reforms are the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Bill, the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) (Consequential Amendments) Bill, and the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Amendment Bill. These bills were introduced by government to help contain future growth in claims costs, in turn leading to an improvement in the availability and affordability of insurance to small business, not-for-profit organisations, medical practitioners and other sections of the community hardest hit over the last year or so.
The legislation that the Martin Labor government introduced contained a number of mechanisms designed to keep downward pressure on premiums by the introduction of a cap of $350 000, and a minimum medical impairment threshold of 5% of whole-of-person on awards for general damages, or for non-economic loss, such as pain and suffering. It is important to note that the legislation did not introduce the cap on hospital, medical, nursing or rehabilitation costs.
There is a lot more to this reforming legislation than just bringing certainty into the fee and compensation aspects of public liability. The reforms also address the issue of liabilities for personal injuries to volunteers in community organisations. It also addressed the situation where a person offers assistance or aid to a person who is apparently in need of emergency assistance. In other words, a good Samaritan. Thanks to this legislation, a person may now make an oral or written statement expressing regret of an incident that is alleged to have caused the personal injury. Such a statement will not be assumed as an acknowledgment of fault and is not admissible in future proceedings. Empowering individuals to make expressions of regret without acknowledgment of fault may achieve closure for the individual, which I believe will, in its turn, have a significant effect on the frequency of claims.
Turning to the bill before us, the Personal Injuries (Civil Claims) Bill. The purpose of the bill is to improve the processes for the resolution of actions arising out of certain personal liabilities. The bill seeks to achieve this purpose by regulating the claims processes during the period before commencement of proceedings in a court. More particularly, the bill provides for:
a requirement for early notification of claims by a claimant to the person against whom the claim
is being made;
act;
may cover disputes arising from the claims processes, access to documents, extensions of time regarding
the pre-litigation Notice of Claim, the identification of the proper respondent and other contributors, the
application of the rules for persons with a disability, the making of offers and counter-offers, medical
examination, resolution conferences, and incidental matters;
the court but this approval can be given without formal proceedings having been commenced in a court;
for the exclusion of medical and legal professional privilege regarding various medical reports in respect
of claims for personal injuries;
formal litigation in court;
for a compulsory settlement conference between the parties and, where the matter fails, for the filing of final
offers in the court;
will depend on the outcome of the case, the final award of damages, and whether the parties should have settled
the matter prior to going to hearing based on the final offers. The cost outcomes are designed to discourage the pursuit or prolonging of smaller value claims and to encourage parties to settle the matters as quickly as possible; and
As my colleague the Attorney-General has mentioned previously, the proposals contained in this bill have been the subject of considerable debate within the various professions affected by the reforming legislation. Indeed, such was his desire to make sure that government created good law for the community, he established the Tort Law Reform Legal Process Group whose membership could easily be described as being amongst the most respected of the Territory’s legal fraternity.
The minister has acknowledged their input and valued assistance in creating this legislation. I also express the gratitude of the community for their generous contribution. However, sometimes little things can go wrong with the best of things and in this case Murphy’s Law - which I am sure everyone knows goes something like: if something can go wrong, it will - applied itself at the last sittings when this bill was introduced to the House.
On 27 February 2003 the Attorney-General, pursuant to notice, presented the Personal Injuries (Civil Claims) Bill. The bill was read a first time and the minister moved that the bill be now read a second time, and made a second reading speech in relation to it. Debate on the second reading speech was then adjourned on the motion of shadow Attorney-General, the member for Goyder. On 18 March 2003 - I ask members to hold onto this date - the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel advised that the presentation copy signed by the Attorney-General, which was distributed to members in the Chamber, and subsequently to members and other members of the public by the Table Office, were produced with the omission of page 12 of the bill.
It was advised that this was an inadvertent production error in that the copying machine could not reproduce one page, and in the short time available, this omission was not identified in time to replace the copies. Following that advice on 18 March 2003, the Clerk advised all members of the Assembly and provided a correct copy of the bill and further advised the complete and correct version of the bill had been available in the electronic version on the Intranet and Internet sites of the Northern Territory government on and from 27 February 2003, the date that it was introduced in parliament.
Madam Speaker, I have a copy of the letter the Clerk sent to members, and I take a moment to refresh my colleagues’ memories:
- To all members
Enclosed is a corrected version of the Personal Injury (Civil Claims) Bill (Serial 137) which was introduced
by the Attorney-General on 27 February 2003. Immediately prior to the introduction of this bill,
Parliamentary Counsel made available printed copies of the bill. One of these copies was tabled by
the Attorney-General in his introduction to the Personal Injury (Civil Claims) Bill. Other copies from the
same batch were provided to members of the Legislative Assembly.
It was later discovered that page 12 of the printed version had been amended from the copies produced for
the Assembly. I have been advised that this was due to a printing error. The copy machine did not collect one
entire page and this particular error would have been difficult to identify in the short time available to inspect
the printed version. There were no blank pages and no obvious indication that there was an omission from
the printed version.
Madam Speaker, it is an important point and I would like to restate that, particularly for the member for Araluen who seemed to have trouble hearing it:
- It was later discovered that page 12 of the printed version had been omitted from the copies produced for
the Assembly.
The Clerk went on to say:
- I have been advised that this was due to a printing error. The copy machine did not collect one entire page and
this particular error would have been difficult to identify in the short time available to inspect the printed version.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr KIELY: You have a bit of trouble with this, don’t you, member for Araluen, and I will get to why you have trouble with this, because you have form on this.
- There were no blank pages and no obvious indication that there was an omission from the printed version.
It is proposed that a correct version of …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am having a lot of difficulty hearing what the member is saying due to the interjections of the other side.
Madam SPEAKER: That is a fair comment. Order!
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr KIELY: Oh, you will hear me a lot more, member for Greatorex. I have heard the dribblings from that side.
- It is proposed that a correct version of the Personal Injury (Civil Claims) Bill be tabled during the next sittings
on 29 April 2003. It is also advised that a complete and correct version of the bill was posted on the Internet
the day after it was introduced.
Yours sincerely,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly
18 March 2003.
Madam Speaker, I have another piece of correspondence in my possession which also refers to this print mishap. It is from the member for Araluen, the shadow minister for Tourism, Parks and Wildlife, and Women’s Policy, but she may also consider herself to be the shadow Attorney-General. Here it is, just in case. If you want me to table it I will be happy to do it. Here is the media release right here, and it reads:
Media Release
NT Country Liberal Party
18 March, 2003
That date again, 18 March, the same date as the notification by the Clerk of the printing omission. By jeez, that is a coincidence, isn’t it? ‘Attorney forgets to read his own laws’, the media release screams out at us, and here is what the media release says:
- The government has introduced new laws in the Legislative Assembly that are missing key sections, the
member for Araluen, Jodeen Carney, said today. ‘Two complete clauses of the bill are missing, as are
parts of two other clauses,’ Ms Carney said. ‘What makes it worse is that it was the Attorney-General,
Peter Toyne, our first law officer, who presented this bill to parliament. He even referred to the clauses
in his speech in parliament but obviously forgot to check whether the final document was correct or not.’
Ms Carney said the bill, part of the government strategy of fixing the insurance crisis, is the Personal Injury
(Civil Claims) Bill.
Well, she got one bit right.
‘I used to be a personal injuries lawyer so obviously I have been working the bill in preparation for debate
at the next sittings of the parliament,’ she said.
Well, that is pretty obvious, isn’t it? Pretty obvious after you were advised that a page was missing. That is when you had a look at it. She goes on, members:
‘I was amazed to discover that part of section 15, all of sections 16 and 17, and most of section 18 …’
She could have paraphrased that into page 12,
- ‘… are missing from the bill.’
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson, there has been a point of order raised.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, in an attempt to preserve what little integrity the member for Sanderson has left …
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Ms CARNEY: My point of order is this: he said that a page was missing, an entire page was missed in the photocopier.
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Ms CARNEY: The bill itself clearly shows that missing sections were not as simple as a missing page as the member suggests. It is misleading the House.
Madam SPEAKER: No. Member for Araluen, please resume your seat. That is not a point of order. When you come to the podium you state what your point of order is, not try to …
Ms CARNEY: The member for Sanderson, Madam Speaker, is misleading the House, and he should be very mindful of his comments.
Mr KIELY: A point of order on that one, Madam Speaker! She said that I was misleading the House. Doesn’t a substantive motion have to be put?
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. No point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KIELY: It is pretty clear, Madam Speaker, that no one over there is a minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Just cease, member for Sanderson! Member for Greatorex and Member for Drysdale, settle down!
Mr KIELY: I will carry on, Madam Speaker, if I may. I have just picked up on the member for Araluen’s amazement, of which she advised everyone. Well, members of the Assembly, I am afraid I do not share the member for Araluen’s amazement …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, would you cease.
I think you have had enough, okay? Before I give you a warning, settle back. And the Member for Greatorex. You both know that.
Mr KIELY: I really think that they should be called zig and zag those two, shouldn’t they? They would look good with ice cream cones on their head.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, off you go!
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This debate is about a specific piece of legislation. The honourable member has made his point. It is now getting to the stage of repetition which does offend standing orders. I ask you to intervene.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order as he is responding to something that the member for Araluen raised herself. But I would suggest the member for Sanderson get on with his remarks.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KIELY: I would just like to make one observation, Madam Speaker. It is in the media release. She is accusing the Attorney-General, the member for Stuart, of some pretty harsh stuff here. But she says:
- This is a basic stuff-up by the Attorney-General …
That is eloquent; that is well put.
- This is a basic stuff-up by the Attorney-General and very embarrassing for someone who is supposed to be
the first law officer of the Territory.
Well, member for Araluen, the member for Stuart is the first law officer, not you - that is quite clear …
Ms Carney: And you have never been …
Mr KIELY: The stuff-up, you well knew, prior to compiling that little torrid piece of rubbish. You knew where the stuff-up lay, yet you attributed it. You have form on this. The member for Araluen, members, always puts out these press releases after the event, copies anything across, fails - fails miserably to tell the truth all the time. So, once again …
Ms Carney: Oh, you are killing me!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Sanderson, would you get back on to the legislation.
Mr KIELY: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I am back onto it. I would like to say that, once again, the member for Araluen’s bitterness at not being a real shadow Attorney-General has shown through …
Madam SPEAKER: Back to the legislation, thank you.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Mr KIELY: Oh, I think so, and everyone knows.
Madam SPEAKER: If we had a little less baiting …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: … from the opposition, it might happen. But when you continually make those interjections to the member for Sanderson, you know he is prone to respond.
Mr DUNHAM: I would suggest that the member for Sanderson direct his comments through the Chair, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Exactly, exactly! But I do think, member for Drysdale, you should still refrain from making those interjections. This is a little bit of a two-way street here at the moment. All right, a little order!
Mr KIELY: Oh, Madam Speaker, they make it so difficult to be serious.
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: When you work with clowns, you have to laugh, don’t you?
Madam Speaker, it will be necessary for committee stage amendments to have those parts of the bill contained on page 12 which were omitted from the presentation copy inserted into the bill during the Committee of the Whole consideration of the bill, by the way of printed amendments and in accordance with the usual Committee of the Whole procedures.
This procedure, while it would involve some construction of amendments, would be the only procedure which would not require additional motions or notices to facilitate the passage of the bill during these sittings - something the member for Araluen evidently did not know.
The Martin Labor government is about building our future and protecting the Territory lifestyle. Territory lifestyle is something that the Martin Labor government holds and cherishes dearly. This legislative reform package, relating to liability for personal injuries, is about building our future and protecting the Territory lifestyle.
We can see from the member for Araluen’s contribution to this debate in the form of her venomous, knowingly incorrect, media release that the CLP has not learnt, has not changed and has no new ideas. They continue to whinge, whinge, whinge. They are about the past, not the future and by their actions they keep reminding the community of the sorry state of affairs.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition members, settle down.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I suppose I should ask whether this personal injuries bill will cover me after that speech!
Again, I only have a few words to say. I mentioned previously, Attorney-General, that I believe that, as one of the reasons for these bills coming through parliament is to reduce the cost of liability, and I do not know whether you replied to me in the last – well, I do not think you replied that idea in the last speech you made - but I think it would be good to report back to parliament with details of costs of public liability, especially from a Territory point of view, not necessarily an Australia wide point of view.
I have one other question. I also have a copy of that now famous document, Balance, from the Law Society. There is one statement the President does make there, and I ask the Attorney-General to comment when he responds. The President says:
- This time the [public injuries bill] effectively makes it almost economically impossible for those who have
claims in the lower range of damages to seek legal advice because they will not be able to claim costs
against the defendant even if they are successful. By lower ranges my best guess is less than $30 000.
Could you respond to that, Attorney-General?
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, this has to be one of the most topical issues in recent times in our community in Australia. The issue of the expense of insurance for various organisations is a very important issue. I assure all honourable members that it is an issue I take particularly seriously because I, too, in my electorate have community groups which are being stuck with bills in the order of $1000 to cover public liability for minor events. If memory serves me correctly, last year I was at the Harts Range races where they could find an insurer to cover me for the bull riding, but not for the high jump.
The issue that is before this House is an important one inasmuch as legislation tries to predict what might happen in the future. It is the very nature of tort law to deal with issues that come before a court on a case-by-case basis. Trying to predict what happens in the future means that you cast a blanket into the great unknown and hope to all the powers that are holy that you have been able to cover all of the aspects of things yet to happen. A court looking at a negligence action in tort will be casting its knowing eye over the facts that it has available that are consequences of things that have already occurred.
The purpose of the tort of negligence as I understand it - and I am certainly no lawyer - is to protect a person who is injured as the result of an action of another - an unlawful action if you like; a negligent action. The person who becomes a complainant or a plaintiff in such a scenario is not a volunteer. The person who becomes a plaintiff after they have been injured as the result of negligence of another is a person who has suffered an injury as the result of somebody else’s behaviour and that makes them, in every sense of the word, I suppose, a victim of somebody else’s decisions.
An insurance company, however, is a volunteer. It chooses to enter the marketplace, and when it chooses to enter the marketplace, it says to the marketplace: ‘I will cover an action of damages against you if you pay me a fee of money’ and that is how insurance works. The difference between a plaintiff and an insurer is that the plaintiff is a victim and an insurer is a volunteer.
I pick up on the Treasurer’s comments that the purpose of this legislation is to provide some certainty for insurance companies. Well, it is important to dwell on how insurance companies have conducted themselves over the last 10 or 20 years in this country. It should come as no surprise - but it came as a surprise to me - that these companies have not been the operators that I thought they were. You see, I was under the rather nave misapprehension up until a year or so ago that, when I paid my premium it was placed into a bank account where it was carefully looked after and nurtured for a small amount of interest, nice and safe. Then, should I have been unfortunate to suffer some sort of accident, the insurance company would go to that little trust account and pull out an appropriate amount of money to cover the damage that I had done to myself. In fact, what the insurance company does is take your premium, goes, ‘Whoopee’, and goes for a little ride on the stock market, and that works. That works in the good times.
However, as we are all aware, in the last couple of years, the stock market has not been so kind to the people who have been playing the field. The unfortunate thing is that, in the good times, the insurance companies were artificially pushing down their premiums to remain competitive. The Treasurer alluded to it in the comments he made in relation to HIH. I will not join him in condemning the directors until such time as they have been convicted but, nevertheless …
Mr Stirling: You want to read the Financial Review.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I do not see that the Financial Review is a court of law. Nevertheless, I will wait for the them to go through that process. The important thing is that the insurance companies have been playing the stock market and keeping their premiums artificially low. All of a sudden, the stock market collapses and, to keep their heads above water, they have had to send out premiums, not only to the professions but also to employers, to cover things like workers compensation. In the last year or so, we have seen workers compensation insurance premiums go up by about 400% to 500%, because insurance companies have not been careful with the way that they have dealt with the money which is, essentially, in a form of trust - not at law, I suppose, but certainly in terms of the way that the system is supposed to operate.
This being the case, and the fact that insurance companies are volunteers, what we find ourselves now legislating for is not to protect the person who is a potential plaintiff or victim. Rather, we find ourselves legislating to protect them in the hope that the insurance companies, which in my opinion have made many of the errors, are going to pass those lower costs on to us, the consumers.
I am prepared to not oppose this legislation at this point in an effort to try to bring those lower premiums to the people who pay them: the employers, the professions and the little community groups which have to run their cake stalls and their small organisations often at a loss - at a great loss - to cover insurance costs. I urge the minister, in the strongest possible terms, to review this legislation in 12 months or so, as suggested by the member for Araluen, because I believe it is a very important review to have. If the insurance companies have failed in a meaningful way to pass on to the consumer those lower premiums because of the lower costs that we hope will come out of this process, then we should take this protective wall away from them and return to a system where it is actually the plaintiff or the people who are the victims of other people’s negligence who are protected.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I thank all members for their contribution. It was particularly good to see the soothing remarks of the member for Sanderson. That seemed to guarantee that we will get solid support from the opposition. I am always, as you well know, trying to promote strong debates on our legislation. This is very important and the core business of the parliament and I again thank everyone for their contribution.
I will keep this fairly short because it will be a long committee stage. I simply say that, in the previous bill which is part of the package of four bills that the government has brought forward in response to the public liability crises, we did have a major discussion about the possible response of the insurance industry and the difficulty of really predicting that. I refer members to the previous Hansard, and those issues were well canvassed and probably do not need repeating at this stage.
The member for Araluen brought forward some quite valid points that we will deal with in the committee stage, clause by clause. We certainly intend to give you a fulsome response on those. By way of framing the debate that we will have at committee stage, I point you to the second reading speech in which we made it clear that what this bill is establishing is a framework of principles that will be used by our Supreme Court Justices to put together the rules by which this arrangement will operate. I will just restate those principles.
The first principle, which is embodied in clause 7 and clause 8, is an obligation of a potential claimant to notify the potential defendant within 12 months of either the injury or the time when the claimant became aware of the injury. That is the first principle. In clause 9 there is an obligation of the potential respondent to respond to that notice. In clause 11, an obligation on the parties to acclaim to attend a conference for the purpose of resolving the claim. Finally, in clause 11, an obligation on both parties to make final offers if they have failed to settle their differences.
We are now passing this across, on recommendation from the working group, to our Justices and they will use the full measure, I am sure, of their experience in the courts and with the law to shape the rules that will deal with this in detail as a process. I would just say that we will deal with these issues you brought forward, but it has to be within the light that we are really talking about a framework and not specific and detailed arrangements for implementation.
The point from the member for Nelson was about the cost structure. You were saying that the Balance article claimed that below $30 000 there will not be a viable system because of the curtailment of costs for claims to be brought forward. Since the article was written the threshold has actually been lowered to $15 000, so that has certainly changed that situation markedly. You will see in the bill that the cost structure that has been put forward is based on a $15 000 threshold.
I can only say that the member for Macdonnell, as usual, presents a unique view of the opposition position on this. When we have the shadow minister saying that the opposition support the bill, the member for Araluen presenting most of the debate on the bill, and the member for Macdonnell wondering whether he is going to support the bill or not, it gets a bit confusing on our side. I will go with the shadow minister’s position. I am assuming that the opposition is going to support this bill and I thank them for that support. So we will move into committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam SPEAKER: We now move into the committee stage, for the members of the gallery. The Chairman of Committees will take the Chair and we will discuss the amendments.
If the member for Araluen is going to be the major spokesman, would she like to move to the despatch box to ask her questions? That might assist.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.1.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, I hope you have been able to obtain advice on the issues I raised earlier in relation to, firstly, the definition of ‘personal injury’ and why it does not include reference to ‘physical injury’.
Dr TOYNE: I am advised that the term ‘personal injury’ actually does embody ‘physical injury’, so it is not necessary to further state it in the definitions. I believe that is the case.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. In relation to the definition of ‘medical expert’, were you able to obtain assistance on that? You will recall that the question I had was, in essence, what happens when the parties cannot agree on what is an ‘expert’?
Dr TOYNE: Again, I am advised that the term ‘medical expert’ is actually a term meaning that it is the author of a report brought to the court hearing. It does not embody the degree of expertise of that person. That, I would imagine, is judged as evidence along with any other evidence brought to a court on how credible it is and how credible is the person presenting it.
Ms CARNEY: Can you anticipate a situation where the parties may be sitting around the conference table; both parties are providing to each other reports from whom they consider are experts and one party says to the other: ‘Well, your Mr Smith, the psychiatrist, might be saying all sorts of things but he is by no means an expert’. How do you envisage that sort of conflict which, in my view, is likely to occur from time to time? What is the procedure for resolving that sort of conflict?
Dr TOYNE: As a general principle, this is a pre-court negotiation as an alternative, hopefully, to going into a formal court hearing - it could well go forward to court - but the core of this is that it is a negotiation; it is the two parties trying to come to some sort of common agreement. But I will take some further advice from my experts here.
There is nothing embodied in the word ‘medical’ or any other expert. All that refers to is any person who has generated a document or a report that goes into the mediation process. It does not indicate a degree of expertise. The normal mediation processes will evaluate the claims being made by each party and will put weighting on the source of any evidence or report that either party has put into that negotiation.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. I am not entirely happy with that explanation, but I do understand where you are coming from. Fortunately, I am no longer a practicing legal practitioner, and when I see legislation like this, I am eternally grateful, so we will move on.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.2. Clause 4 contains the definition of ‘final offer’. However, the term ‘final offer’ is used in clauses 11, 18 and 20 in a more narrow way than the meaning given by the definition. The intention of the bill is that only final offers that are of relevance in determining cost outcomes as referred to in clauses 18 and 20 are the offers made for the purposes of clause 11. Accordingly, the current definition of ‘final offer’ is to be omitted and replaced by a definition stating that a ‘final offer’ is an offer of the kind described in clause 11.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.3. Clause 4 contains the definition of ‘rules.’ This definition refers to regulations that may have been made under clause 22(2). This amendment changes the definition consequential to the proposed removal of clause 22(2) from the bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.4. Clause 5(4)(d) provides that claims for benefits under the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act are excluded from the operation of the act. This provision can be read as only applying to the statutory benefits given by the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act. However, the intention is that the common law claims that are governed by that act should also be excluded from the operation of this act. This amendment provides for that outcome. A similar change will be made by way of regulation to the equivalent application section of the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act 2003 which will commence operation on 1 May 2003.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7, by leave, taken together.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, in relation to clause 7, do you accept that there may be a duplication of legal costs by the enactment of this section. That is, as I said earlier, if one party says to the other: ‘Here is all of my evidence on liability and quantum. I am prepared to settle,’ and the insurer says: ‘No, we are not prepared to settle’. Do you concede that the claimant must then go through the court process, and might that be a duplication of legal costs?
Dr TOYNE: I will take advice on that one. At this point, I would remind you of what I said in the second reading summation; that these arrangements are going to be embodied in rules yet to be made by our Justices. We would expect that they would certainly use the rules to make sure that there is no duplication. We have to, as you said in your speech, take some degree of trust that that will be built into the actual operating arrangements. However, we will certainly be monitoring to see that there is not a duplication of the impost of the claimants.
Ms CARNEY: You would acknowledge, wouldn’t you, that Justices of the Supreme Court or, indeed, the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court, are unlikely to produce rules or practice directions that specifically go to the core of the issue I am addressing; that is, the duplication of legal costs? Surely you are not seriously saying that the Justices will produce rules or practice directions that will ensure that people are protected from doubling up of legal costs, are you?
Dr TOYNE: I point to the overall intention of this legislation; that is to, wherever possible, reduce the costs of claim process. That is the whole point of going back from a formal court hearing. That is the overriding principle, if you like, of this entire legislation and the process that we will be asking the Justices to put into practice. I would find it quite illogical, whether it was the Chief Justice or the Chief Magistrate enacting rules, that they would bring in a duplicated system which would actually lead to greater costs.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, I am watching nods and winks. Would you concede then that, as a general proposition, the effect of this clause is that a lot of people might be better off, but some people will not be better off; that is, the ones who are subjected to a duplication of legal costs?
Dr TOYNE: If you could bear with me, I want to get you an accurate answer to it. There has been guidance given to the Justices of the intent of the legislation and, therefore, what the rules have to express to the point that repetitive provision of documentation and evidence should be avoided. Beyond that, we cannot really say because, if we are handing the exercise on the recommendation of the working party - and certainly the strong preference of the Justices to the Justices to shape these rules - we cannot be overly prescriptive, I guess, in the guidelines that are given to them. We have to state the intent of the process, the broad outline of the process, and the principles that are going to be followed regarding the interests that will be expressed through it. All I can assure you is that there certainly are guidelines being given to the Justices which are asking for that outcome, for costs not to be accrued through the duplication of presentation of evidence.
Ms CARNEY: I can assure that I will very shortly move on. When you say ‘guidelines have been provided to the judges’, what was the manner in which those guidelines were provided?
Dr TOYNE: They are really an elaboration of the intent of the legislation. It is not saying: ‘Here are your options on how to put rules in place’. Basically, the intent of the different stages of the process as the legislation is intending.
Ms CARNEY: Have you provided guidelines to the Justices of the Supreme Court in writing about this bill?
Dr TOYNE: No.
Ms CARNEY: Then what guidance, other than your second reading speech, have you provided to them?
Dr TOYNE: The Justices were represented on the working group as one direct link, and a lot of the workings of that group, written or otherwise, would inform the intent of the legislation and, therefore, the type of rules that the Justices will have to put in place.
Ms CARNEY: I am really sorry to keep labouring this point, but it is getting worse as we go on. Is it the case that there has been a judge or two on the working group? Is it your understanding that they sort of know where you are coming from, and that is good enough and, therefore, they understand and they will do the right thing when they are issuing the Practice Directions and producing their rules? Is it that simple?
Dr TOYNE: You have before you a fairly detailed bill which is spelling out the areas that the rules have to address.
Ms CARNEY: One more on this: because this is an issue that may, in practical terms, disadvantage some people, would you be prepared to assure us on the Hansard that you will review this act and, in particular this section, or provide us with some figures to the extent that they are to be provided after, say, 12 months of the operation of the bill?
Dr TOYNE: That is a fair request. I will give that undertaking here and now that we will certainly report to the House on how this beds down. In common with what I have done in many other areas of legislative reform, it is a healthy process to bring this back to the House. Just to be more exact about that, we can set a review period of 12 months from the finalisation of the rules by the Court. As you know, in the original draft of the legislation we were talking about six months, but now it is in the hands of the Justices, and that will be the starting point of the review period.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you.
Dr TOYNE: Happy?
Ms CARNEY: Not entirely, but happy enough.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.5. Clause 8(4)(a) currently provides that, in effect, the obligations to give notice of a claim will be met if the claimant has made a complaint about the respondent under the Health and Community Services Complaints Act. However, because that act does not fix times by when complaints must be made, the effect of the current drafting that the times limits in clause 8 could be avoided by simply lodging a complaint with the Commissioner for Health and Community Services Complaints at any time.
This amendment to clause 8(4)(a) makes it clear that such complaints must be lodged with the commissioner within the time limit specified in this act in order for the complainant to have complied with this act. This amendment does not, of course, affect the operation of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: Again I touched on a couple of points earlier, and I am sure in a minute I will be able to remember what they were.
Dr TOYNE: It is about ‘reasonable’ reasons.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. Can you tell us why it is that you have seen fit not to provide assistance or some form of definition in relation to ‘reasonable’ delay?
Dr TOYNE: Well, we have had this debate in earlier bills where the term ‘reasonable’ has been used in the legislation. It is a term that is very widely used, as you know, in court hearings, and courts themselves have become quite expert in applying the concept of reasonableness to the various contexts in which the law operates. As a practising lawyer, you probably realise that that term depends heavily on the circumstances of the case. What can be reasonable even within one area of law in one case can be seen as unreasonable in another. There needs to be some flexibility in which this type of measure is placed into the legislation, particularly in the case here, where we are really looking to provide a framework of principles which will inform the actual defining of the process by the court rules.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you for that. Can I say, though, that you do not appear to have anticipated, either in your second reading speech, your response then, or in the draft bill what might happen in, to use what I would consider to be a fairly straightforward example; that is, that if a claim cannot proceed on the basis that there has been an unreasonable delay, it would be the case that the aggrieved party would appeal. Then you would have a situation surely where, again, possible duplication of legal costs and there would be an appeal. Parts of this legislation seem to be directed at minimising court processes and costs. Having said that, is it not possible to provide some legislative assistance for ‘reasonable’ delay to avoid aggrieved parties, namely aggrieved claimants, appealing?
Dr TOYNE: I take you to clause 14, Subject matter of rules, subsection (e) on page 11:
- … the matters the court must consider before granting an extension of the period in which the claimant
may give notice of claim;
In other words, it specifically asks the Justices to set rules regarding that matter, so it is very specifically embodied in the framework that we are providing.
Ms CARNEY: With respect, the answer is not intellectually or practically satisfying. As I understand from what you have said, the Justices will make rules when they get round to it. In the meantime, there is the distinct possibility that the aggrieved litigants will appeal if they have not satisfied the requirements of clause 8. Surely the people drafting the bill could tidy this up?
Dr TOYNE: I am getting a picture from what you have just said, but the Justices are going to be making rules on the run as cases are on foot. We are basically setting up a process defined by the rules that the Justices will make and, through the legislation, we are providing the matters on which those rules must be made. I do not take your point.
I have not much more to add, other than this is all predicated on having a group of competent and ethical judges - and I am absolutely certain we have - and that they will deal this and put in place an appropriate procedural arrangement.
Ms CARNEY: With respect, my point is not about the competence or the ethics of the judges; it is about the ability of government to provide legislation which is user-friendly, when the whole thing is predicated on the basis that this is a more user-friendly system than the last one. I repeat my point: is it not possible to provide legislative assistance for those people - lawyers who will be involved in the understanding of this bill - and in an attempt to look after some of money that litigants may use as a result?
Dr TOYNE: I cannot say much more beyond what I have already said. We have established a process where we legislate to provide the principals and the framework; the Justices set the rules. That is about as far as I can go.
Ms CARNEY: I learned fairly early on in the law never to flog a dead horse, but I am compelled to go one step further. That is: do you not concede that, even though the judges are able to set rules, it is the role of government to provide legislation that is user-friendly and, because there may be some confusion, do you not accept as Attorney-General that it is your job to assist those who ultimately have the job of interpreting the legislation?
Dr TOYNE: I will just say we have. We put forward a scheme that we believe will streamline and reduce costs in this matter and we will see what happens. The proof in the pudding is when it starts operating, and I have given you an undertaking that we will review the outcomes.
Ms CARNEY: I move on to another part of the clause. Am I correct in understanding the clause in this way: that if a party does not provide written notice of the claim within 12 months, they will be prevented from pursuing a common law claim for the sorts of injuries provided for in the definition in clause 4?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, largely that is the case. But the court can exempt the time period if there is sufficient argument for that. There is discretion there.
Ms CARNEY: Which, of course, is subject to the definition of ‘reasonable’ delay, which gets us back to square one. But …
Dr TOYNE: Well, the court has to make a decision. This is a court-led process, and courts make these decisions day after day, year after year.
Ms CARNEY: Well, what the member for Karama would know about this and much else, I am not sure, but anyway …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Member for Araluen, keep your address to the Attorney-General.
Ms CARNEY: There is one other question, which is another issue I touched upon earlier. In the event that a claimant does not file the notice within 12 months, and is not able to seek leave to file a claim a notice after 12 months, could you explain the situation in relation to costs following an appeal in relation to clause 8? I am so sorry, I have not put that well. But, I see your advisors is nodding, so they have understood what I have said.
Dr TOYNE: Yes, I take you to clause 16(2):
The court may make consequential or ancillary orders, including orders for costs.
So, the court has the ability, in the case where a party has not met some obligation, to rule on it.
Ms CARNEY: Do I assume, then, that if you win your appeal, the successful party recovers costs? Does this section apply to that? Once again, I see the advisor is nodding. Thank you for that. That concludes my questions in relation to that section.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I am not sure how we record a nod there. Attorney-General?
Ms CARNEY: Yes.
Dr TOYNE: If you will accept a nod, we will probably save a bit of time in the debate.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.6. Clause 9(1) provides that a respondent must respond to a claim. However, it does not specify who is to receive the response. This amendment makes it clear that in responding, the respondent must give the claimant notice of the response. It makes sense.
Ms CARNEY: It does. Hear, hear!
Dr TOYNE: I take it you agree with that one.
Ms CARNEY: I do.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.7. Clause 9(1), in providing for the respondent’s notice of response, does not specify what needs to be in the response. This can be compared with clause 8(2) which deals with what the claimant must provide to the respondent. This amendment provides that the respondent’s response must be accompanied by such documents as required by the rules.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.8. Clause 10(1) provides a general duty on the parties to provide to other parties the information and documents necessary to assess the respective legal positions. This amendment spells out that this duty includes the duty of providing information necessary to identify third parties.
Ms CARNEY: This is the obligation on the parties to provide discovery, essentially, as I understand it, and that they must provide the documents. Is it also the case that they have to provide those documents within that 12 month period or is it just the notification of claim within the 12 month period that needs to occur?
Dr TOYNE: Yes. I will take you to clause 8, Claimant to give notice of claim, subsection (2):
- A notice of claim is to be in the form prescribed by the Rules and is accompanied by the documents (if any)
specified by the Rules.
So, in other words, a package of both the notice and the documentation is to be provided and then …
Ms CARNEY: Within 12 months?
Dr TOYNE: No, initially, at the time that the notice is given. And, similarly, in clause 9(1A):
- A notice of response from the respondent is to be accompanied by the documents (if any) specified by
the Rules.
Again, the Justices will indicate.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. I do not think there is any point asking a question in relation to what the Attorney-General said on the drafting of that section.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I invite defeat of Clause 11.
Clause 11 negatived.
Proposed new clause 11:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.9. Clause 11 provides for a mandatory conference if the parties have not settled their dispute. It then provides for the exchange of final orders if the dispute is not resolved at the conference. Finally, the clause provides that if the court dispenses with the need to hold such a conference, then the final offers must still be made and must be lodged with the court. Inadvertently, clause 11 did not provide for the lodgment within the court of final offers made at the compulsory conference. To remedy this omission, clause 11 is to be omitted and replaced with a new clause 11, which sets out in more detail the process to be followed in respect of the conference, and the making of offers, and the lodgment of such offers with the court.
New clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.10. This amendment and the following amendment providing for a new clause 13(1A) will change the structure for the making of the rules governing pre-litigation processes. In the bill as introduced, the Supreme Court judges were to make the rules to govern all courts. Following discussions with the Chief Justice and the Chief Magistrate, it is apparent that there may be some problems with that approach. In the main, those difficulties relate to the relationships between the ordinary rules of court governing litigation and the pre-litigation rules. I also mention that government officers have discussed these provisions with the Chief Justice. I understand that the Chief Justice has indicated that he will move to develop appropriate rules governing pre-litigation proceedings and that the absence of legislation providing such a power has been a barrier to the making of such rules. Having regarded these issues, it is proposed that the structure be as follows.
First, the Supreme Court will have the power to make core rules dealing with matters such as the time periods by which things must be done. Absolute uniformity on these kinds of issues is necessary because, at the time when the notice is given under clause 8, there can be no certainty as to which court will end up receiving the formal statement of claim. Second, the local court and the Supreme Court will have the power to make other procedural rules; for example, rules that make textural changes to the current rules, thus ensuring a relatively seamless process from these pre-litigation proceedings into any subsequent formal proceedings. Clause 13(1)(c) contains a generic reference to court. However, as previously mentioned, clause 13(1)(c) is only to apply to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, this amendment provides for this to be made clear.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.11. Clause 13(1)(d) contains a generic reference to court. However, clause 13(1)(d) is only to apply to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, this amendment provides that this is quite clear.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.12. New clause 13(1A) provides that the Chief Magistrate may make rules regarding the practices and procedures to be followed in respect of personal injuries proceedings that fall within the jurisdiction of the local court.
Ms CARNEY: This question actually applies to all of the proposed amendments and you will be pleased to know it is my last. Can I ask whether the amendments circulated today have been provided to the legal profession and, if so, when?
Dr TOYNE: Whilst there has been a broader discussion and the working group itself had representation from the legal profession, these amendments regarding the dual process between the Chief Magistrate and the Chief Justice have not. They have been simply arranged between the Chief Justice and Chief Magistrate.
Ms CARNEY: Just to follow up, do I take it from what you say that, in relation to all of these amendments, only those relating to the section dealing with the Chief Magistrate and the Chief Justice have been circulated to the Territory’s legal profession?
Dr TOYNE: All but these amendments.
Ms CARNEY: All but those sections. And when was that?
Dr TOYNE: Sorry which …
Ms CARNEY: When was it circulated? You can see where I am coming from and that is: you said when you first introduced the bill the profession and the working group had been consulted and so on. I am just wanting to ensure that, in fact, they have been consulted in respect of these amendments.
Dr TOYNE: Honestly, I am surprised at the question because through the second reading debate both you and the member for Goyder quoted extensively the opinion from various sections of the legal profession. So, it is quite clear that there has been a consultative process and that some people have agreed with various parts of the legislation and some have not.
Ms CARNEY: With respect, you have missed the point. You have come in here today and provided numerous, specific amendments to a bill that you introduced. Notwithstanding what the member for Goyder and I have said today, have those amendments been provided to the Law Society and to members of the legal profession in the Northern Territory and, if so, when?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, last Monday.
Ms CARNEY: Last Monday, thank you.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.13. Clause 13(3) deals with the application of the rules to courts. This amendment omits and replaces clause 13(3). New clause 13(3) identifies which rules apply to all claims. The affected rules are those dealing with the rights and obligations of parties and the general procedures to be followed before a proceeding is formally commenced.
Clauses 13(3A) and (3B) provide that certain rules made under this act may take the physical form of amendments to the Local Court rules or the Supreme Court rules.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.14. Clause 13(4) contains a definition of court rule. This definition is now unnecessary. Accordingly, it is to be removed.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.15. Clause 14(d) provides that rules can be made relating to the procedures, notices of claim, and responses to notices of claim. This amendment changes clause 14(d) consequential to changes made to clause 9 by amendment 37.6.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.16. Clause 14 deals with rules that can be made by the court. This amendment spells out that rules can be made that provide for the referral of the parties to mediation or information sessions as soon as the relevant information notices are lodged.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.17. Clause 14(q) refers to the attending of a resolution conference by the parties. Consequential to the omission and replacement of clause 11, clause 14(q) is to be amended by removing the cross-reference to the parties attending such a conference.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.18. Clause 14 does not deal with the issue of whether the courts may make various ancillary orders in order to ensure due compliance with the provisions of the proposed act. This amendment sets out that the rules may deal with such consequential matters.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.19. Clause 14(t) refers to the provision of final orders to the court and contains cross-reference to sections 11(3). Consequential to the omission and replacement of clause 11, clause 14(t) is to be amended so it contains a general reference to the lodgement of such final offers.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.20. Clause 14 does not spell out any mechanism for the court to establish records about pre-litigation procedures that may be regulated by the courts under the provisions of the act. This amendment inserts a new clause 14(2) which says the rules may require a party to lodge notices of claims with the relevant court.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I have notes here on clause 15, if I could put those on to the record. The bill as tabled did not have a page numbered page 12. This means that the bill being debated does not include several provisions intended to be included in the bill. Advice from Parliamentary Counsel and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly is to the effect that clause 15 of the bill now comprises subclauses (1), (2) and (3) as on page 11 of the printed bill, and subclauses (2) and (3) as on page 13 of the printed bill.
The following amendments are designed to remove clause 15(3) on page 11 of the printed bill, and clauses 15(2) and (3) on page 13 of the printed bill. They are to be replaced by new clauses 15(3), 15(4) and clauses 16, 17 and 18. These new provisions are along the lines of those originally intended to be included. The clauses in their original form are the clauses published in the electronic versions of the bill. However, these replacement provisions are not exactly the same as those that were originally intended to be in the bill.
Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.21. This amendment omits clause 15(3), as on page 11 of the printed bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.22. This amendment omits clause 15(2), as on page 13 of the printed bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.23. This amendment omits clause 15(3), as on page 13 of the printed bill, and replaces it with new clauses 15(3), and 15(4).
Clause 15(3) provides that, subject to any applicable court order, hospital or medical reports provided in accordance with clause 15 need not include expressions of opinion about liability. Clause 15(4) provides that documents provided in accordance with the rules have the same privileges as if disclosed in a Supreme Court proceeding.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
New clauses 16, 17 and 18:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.24. This amendment inserts new clauses 16 to 18.
Clause 16, Court’s power to enforce compliance, etcetera, compared with the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 Queensland (section 35), authorises the court to order any party to comply with the duties imposed by Part 4 of the bill. It is generally the same as the original proposed version of clause 16, excepting that it relates to the whole of Part 2 and not just Division 4. Additionally, it provides that the court may, in accordance with the rules, strike out a claim or a response and make ancillary orders, including orders for costs.
Clause 17, Costs consequences of non-compliance, sets out that the court may make various costs orders and decisions about interest following non-compliance with the provisions of this part of the act.
Finally, clause 18, Costs in relation to resolved claim, provides for a regulation of legal costs payable when a claim is settled at, or consequent to, a compulsory conference. The clause is the same as the original proposed version of clause 18 excepting that it makes it clear that it has no operation in respect of matters settled prior to the compulsory conference referred to in clause 11. This limiting of clause 18(1) to resolution conferences provides a framework that both parties will be aware of prior to the conference. It will establish mutually consistent expectations that a settlement at the prescribed minimum or lower amount will result in no costs being payable, or for between minimum and maximum, a fixed level of costs being payable. The absence of regulations of legal costs prior to the resolution conference is designed to encourage an early resolution of claims. The claimant will potentially receive a greater contribution towards his or her cost, prior to the resolution conference.
Clauses 18 and 20 are more difficult clauses in the bill. Accordingly, I take this opportunity to spell out in some detail about how they will be intended to operate, and what are the policy justifications. However, firstly I mention that it is my intention that the prescribed minimum figure, for the purposes of clauses 18 and 20 be $15 000 and the prescribed maximum figure be $50 000. This will mean that the only court awards for clause 11 settlements where no costs will be recoverable by either side are those where the final amount paid to the claimant is less than $15 000. For awards and settlements between $15 000 and $50 000, the amounts recoverable would depend on the various formulae contained in clause 20.
The effect of clauses 18 and 20 is that there are three different levels of costs payable with various potential results in the bill. This is complex but is also fair. It means that the bill varies the costs payable in accordance with three important factors, namely: whether the matter settles at the resolution conference or proceeds to trial; whether the parties should have settled in accordance with an offer from a claimant or the respondent; and what is the amount of damages awarded by the court.
Whilst these provisions are complex in their detail, it needs to be remembered that they are directed towards lawyers. It is lawyers who will need to understand them, and the provisions themselves reflect the ways in which courts and lawyers approach costs issues. However, the provisions do have an overall purpose; namely of causing claimants, defendants and insurers to approach settlement of personal injuries claims in a mature, cost-conscious fashion. I realise that there may be fears that some defendants may try to abuse some of the features of this scheme. Any such abuse will lead to changes as a matter of urgency.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Could I interrupt you there, Attorney-General? Did you mean to leave out a section on page 12 referring to the basic intention in the bill? Did you leave that paragraph out?
Dr TOYNE: Sorry, which?
Mr CHAIRMAN: On page 12 of your notes, there is a section which speaks about the basic intention in the bill. I do not recall you reading that and I was just worried that you might want it read into Hansard.
Dr TOYNE: I do not have it in this copy here.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will continue, Attorney-General.
Dr TOYNE: I am assuming this is the most recent. This is a real test here, Mr Chairman. Yes, this section we will read in; I have just been given page 12.
The basic intention in the bill regarding legal costs is to promote the policy that lower value claims are to be resolved with the minimum of legal costs. In essence, the method is to reduce the amount of recoverable legal costs that are payable by one party to the other. This should discourage the prolonging of smaller value claims because the costs payable will reduce any award which may be paid. It can, however, be noted that the rules concerning costs do not apply to disbursements. For this purpose, it is not intended that barristers’ fees be characterised as disbursements. So, that will fill that gap.
Now to proceed from where I had reached in the explanation.
In more detail, the clause will work as follows. First, under clause 18, in the settlements achieved prior to the resolution conference, there is no regulation of the costs payable between parties. This means that there will be no change to current practice; parties are free to reach whatever agreement they consider fit. This is made clear by the wording of clause 18 as contained in the amendment schedule.
Second, if this settlement is achieved at resolution conference for the settlement sum less than $15 000, no costs are payable - clause 18(1)(a). For a settlement sum equal to more than $15 000, costs are payable in accordance with the regulations - clause 18(1)(b). The bill provides that these costs may be fixed at a specific amount or to an amount fixed or calculated by reference to the amount of the settlement. I intend to discuss with the Law Society and members of the legal profession what is the best option concerning these proposed regulations. I have been advised of the complications of providing for a lump sum, and also of the complications of using the scale. Neither method is perfect. Accordingly, I consider that this issue is still open for further debate. I also accept that this issue needs to be considered, having regard to the actual amounts set down in costs scales as promulgated by the courts.
Third, for a court’s determination of damages where the award of damages is less than $15 000, no costs are payable for damages that are less than the claimant’s final offer, and more than the respondent’s final offer - clause 20(2)(a). This is because neither party made an accurate assessment of the outcome and so no one should be entitled to obtain costs compensation from any other party.
Fourth, if the court awards where the damages are less than $15 000, and also less than the claimant’s final officer, and equal to or less than the respondent’s final offer, no costs are payable up to the date of the respondent’s final offer under clause 20(2)(b)(i), and the claimant pays 25% of the respondent’s costs for the subsequent litigation under clause 20(2)(b)(ii). This reflects an assessment that in this situation it is the respondent who should receive compensation for some of his or her costs.
Fifth, if the court determines damages less than $15 000, and also less than the claimant’s final offer and equal to or less than the respondent’s final offer, the claimant pays the respondent’s costs at 25% of the applicable scale for work done from the date of offer - clause 20(2)(b). That is, the claimant suffers because the claimant should have accepted the respondent’s offer.
Sixth, clause 20(2)(c), for court-determined damages less than $15 000 but more than both the claimant’s final offer and the respondent’s final offer, the respondent must pay 25% of the applicable scale.
Eighth, clause 20(3)(b)(ii), for the same situation as section (3)(b)(i), except in relation to the period after the making of the respondent’s final offer the complainant pays the respondent’s costs at 50% of the applicable scale for work done from the respondent’s final offer. This reflects the view that the respondent has made a somewhat more realistic assessment and, thus, is deserving of some compensation for costs incurred.
Ninth, clause 20(3)(c), for damages more than or equal to $15 000 and less than $50 000, and which are also equal to or more than the claimant’s final offer and more than the respondent’s final offer, the respondent is to pay the claimant’s costs of 50% of the applicable scale for work done from the beginning. This reflects the view that the respondent should have accepted the claimant’s offer. However, it also reflects the view that the claim is of a relatively small size and that it should have been settled between the parties rather than by way of expensive court proceedings.
Tenth, clause 20(4)(a), for all awards equal to or more than $50 000, where the damages are less than the claimant’s final offer and more than the respondent’s final offer, the claimant pays the respondent’s costs at 50% of the applicable scale for work done from the date of offer.
Eleventh, clause 20(4)(b), for all awards equal to or more than $50 000 where the damages are less than the claimant’s final offer and equal to or less than the respondent’s final offer, the claimants pay the respondent’s costs at 50% of the applicable scale for work done from the date of offer. For work done up to the date of the offer, no costs are payable.
Twelfth, clause 20(4)(c), for all awards equal to or more than $50 000, where the damages are equal to or more than the claimant’s final offer and more than the respondent’s final offer, the respondent pays the claimant’s costs at 100% of the applicable scale. In this scenario, there is no reason why the respondent should not pay all the costs. The respondent was wrong and should have settled.
The cost provisions in clauses 18 and 20 accord with the recommendations of the working group and are more generous than the Queensland model, and a compromise and modification of the Law Society proposals. The main difference between these provisions and those of the Law Society is that the Law Society made no provision for the claimant to pay a respondent’s costs where the claimant proceeds to trial and is awarded damages less than the amount offered by the respondent.
The basic intention in the bill regarding legal costs is to promote the policy that the lower value claims are settled with a minimum of legal costs. In essence, the method is to reduce the amount of recoverable legal costs that are payable by one party to the other. This should discourage the pursuit or prolonging of smaller value claims because the costs payable will reduce any award that might be paid. Except that this means that some small claimants will be worse off because of the operation of the legislation, however this is a common feature of many of the statutory schemes. The national actuarial reports assessing the overall cost of personal injuries claims show that the smaller value claims are disproportionately expensive to insurers and self-insured entities such as governments, in the costs of investigating and managing the claims and on court time and resources in determining the unresolved disputes.
In summary, for small claims less than the recommended $15 000, the cost consequences of proceeding to the resolution conferences are stringent. For claims over $15 000 and less than $50 000, there were still be a shortfall in what the successful claimant receives from the respondent and what the claimant is charged by their lawyer if the matter proceeds to a resolution conference. Because the costs consequences are even more stringent than if a matter is not resolved at the resolution conference but proceeds to trial, the parties are encouraged to settle before the resolution conference on whatever terms they agree. A settlement at the resolution conference may result in less costs being payable by one party to another than would have occurred prior to this bill coming into force, but the court determination would result in harsher cost provisions again. The intention is to encourage early settlement and discourage parties from taking a chance by proceeding to a court determination.
The stringent regulation of costs is intended to complement the legislative package, to encourage respondents to make an early and realistic offer of settlement knowing the likely overall cost of the claim including the legal costs. A further encouragement to the respondent to make an early offer is that the respondent, even if ultimately 100% successful in the court determination, cannot recover any of its legal costs for the time prior to making the final offer. This provision differs from the claimant, who may recover costs dating back to the beginning.
This process has been criticised for being too complex. The Law Society proposes a simplified system comprising first, that there be no entitlement for costs if the eventual settlement or judgment was below the respondent’s offer. The weakness in this approach is that it precludes the successful respondent from recovering any costs from the unsuccessful claimant. It imposes no financial risk on the claimant that the claimant might have to pay the other side costs.
Second, the Law Society suggests the full entitlement to costs to the claimant if the eventual settlement or judgment was above the respondent’s offer. It is appropriate for the claimant to receive an award of costs if the court orders a higher sum than the claimant had earlier offered to accept. However, the bill is designed to achieve savings for smaller claims, which the society’s proposal does not. The bill does not change the cost provisions for those claims determined or agreed to be more than $50 000.
The society suggests 50% entitlement to costs to the claimant if the eventual settlement or judgment was between the respondent’s offer and the claimant’s offer. The bill provides for the claimant to receive no costs if the settlement or judgment is less than the prescribed minimum sum, recommended to be $15 000, and at 25% or 50% of the scale costs if the sum awarded by the court is less than $50 000.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Attorney-General, thank you. I should just make it clear that those notes refer to the new clauses 16 to 18?
Dr TOYNE: That is correct, yes.
New clauses 16, 17 and 18 agreed to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Just in case people are following, it might look out of sync.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.25. Clause 20(3)(b)(ii) provides that a claimant must pay 25% of the respondent’s costs from the date of the respondent’s final offer if:
(a) the amount awarded is more than the minimum amount prescribed for the purposes of clause 20(2)
and less than the maximum amount prescribed for the purposes of clause 20(3);
(b) the amount awarded is less than the claimant’s final offer and equal to or less than the respondent’s
final offer.
The proposals in clause 20 dealing with costs were intended to implement the recommendations contained in the working party report on the discussion draft of the bill. That report recommended that the figure be 50% for the purposes of the scenario described in clause 20(3)(b). In the equivalent scenario for the respondent as set out in clause 20(3)(c), the figure is 50%. Accordingly, this amendment proposes that clause 20(3)(b) be amended by removing 25% and replacing it with 50%.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.26. Clause 21 provides a number of offences in relation to the provision of false or misleading information by a claimant in the course of proceedings. Inadvertently, the provisions are not drafted so as to impose the same liability on the respondent or other party who has provided false or misleading information to the claimant. This amendment changes clause 21 so that the criminal sanctions govern all parties to the pre-litigation process.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.27. Clause 22(2) provides that the Administrator may make regulations governing various pre-court processes. This power was not intended to supplant the role of the courts. Indeed, the clause is fairly carefully worded so that the regulation making power only applies to matters that occur prior to the formal commencement of proceedings in the court. However, concerns have been expressed that this clause creates the impression that regulations could have been made that unduly influence the prerogatives of the court concerning process issues. It seems appropriate to do whatever is necessary to remove this impression. Accordingly, clause 22(2) is to be removed by this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Title:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 37.28 and, thankfully, the last amendment. This amendment amends the long title to the bill by making it clear that the bill does not only cover costs payable because of an award of the court.
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PLACES OF PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 125)
(Serial 125)
Continued from 25 February 2003.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, if you think the last one was tortuous, this one is going to take forever – not.
This is a pretty straightforward bill that the minister has brought into the House. I have been briefed by his department in relation to it, and I am very grateful to the department for their efforts. This is a bill essentially to bring the Places of Public Entertainment Act into alignment with the National Competition Policy, a policy to which the Northern Territory is a signatory. Of course, the tranche payments to the Northern Territory are entirely dependent on the government getting its legislation into line with the National Competition Policy.
It does allow for what is essentially an appeal process be created as well. At the moment, the Places of Public Entertainment Act, working with the Local Government Act, empowers essentially a delegation to councils to act on behalf of the minister. Those councils may make certain rules and set certain standards in relation how places of public entertainment are managed in those council jurisdictions.
I notice that the act is amended in such a way that there is now a process whereby somebody applying for a licence under this act can appeal to the minister and the minister can make a decision in relation to the matter. We have no issue with that whatsoever. The councils and LGANT were notified of these suggested amendments and, as I understand it, they have raised no issues. I know that there was a steering committee of councils, the firies, police, LGANT, Chamber of Commerce and various government agencies involved in this. That seems to have produced no major issues in the community, and nobody seems to be particularly upset.
There is a new fine strata developed for this act. It gets rid of the old monetary penalties and introduces the penalty point system. At the moment a penalty point is worth $110, if memory serves me correctly. That is in line with the rest of Northern Territory legislation, a very straightforward amendment. The other amendments to this act are essentially de-sexing the act in the sense that is now gender neutral.
I only seek one point of clarification. I have already notified the minister in conversation yesterday about it. I seek simple reassurance that the Uniformity of conditions section - the new section 9AA, if memory serves me correctly, which relates to the number of people who can have access and opening times - is going to be simply used as a measure by which fair practice and fair trading can be ensured between businesses that operate in the same area. I am sure that he will reassure the House of that fact.
I notice also, I am glad to say, that one of my bugbears, regulatory offences, was addressed in the minister’s second reading speech. He identified what is a regulatory offence and what is not a regulatory offence. That is a very important thing, not so much for the purpose of the legislation, but it certainly helps courts down the track when they have to prise regulatory offences from simple offences and ultimately crimes.
I also point out to the minister - and it is probably a hangover from Bill Gates’ influence on our version of English - but in several places, ‘authorised’ in the original act is spelt in two different ways, one with a ‘z’ as per the Bill Gates spell check, and one with an ‘s’. There is nothing the minister can do about that, of course, but I just point it out. He may want to do something about that at some point, particularly in section 13, if memory serves me correctly.
Otherwise, Madam Speaker, we have no problem with this legislation and we support the bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I commend the legislation brought before the House by the Minister for Community Development that came as a result of a National Competition Policy review of the act. It provided for wide ranging stakeholder consultation, as you have heard, overseen by an independent steering committee, and I commend the department for this inclusive process.
The outcome of these legislative amendments meet contemporary best practice models; that is, removing offences that should not have been deemed regulatory offences. As you have heard from the member for Macdonnell, we share a common passion in what are and are not regulatory offences, borne about by our positions on the Subordinate Legislation and Publications Committee, both past and present.
The amendments provide for consistency in the areas of safety and amenity measures across licence provisions for places of public entertainment. In the future, licence applications will have to meet best practice scrutiny, in provisions for proper sanitary arrangements; prevention for risk from fire; fire extinguisher measures; safe exits - removing blockages from exits; sufficient means to exit in case of fire; and proper provision for safety and convenience of the public. Providing consistent conditions in licences for similar licensees provides operators with a fairer, competitive environment and the public with a surety of safety of the amenity in the public place.
As Chair of the parliament’s Subordinate Legislation and Publications Committee, I commend the minister for the removal of regulatory offences that, indeed, did not meet the regulatory test - again, meeting legislative, contemporary best practice.
The Places of Public Entertainment Act had not been reviewed for 21 years. It was well overdue for an overhaul and these substantial amendments bring that overhaul. I congratulate the minister for including in these legislative changes the right of appeal for applicants who have had their licence bids rejected by councils. It is heartening to see this provision of natural justice. I note that the penalties contained in this legislation have increased; however, they are consistent with similar penalties contained in legislation elsewhere. The legislation also provides for a variation between penalties between the individual and the corporate body, both fair and reasonable distinctions. I commend the legislative amendments to the House.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support for this legislation. In fact, there are no major amendments being made here. The amendments introduce two simple improvements. It was picked up by the member for Macdonnell, the shadow opposition spokesperson, and I am glad that he was able to receive a briefing. Obviously, he has had a look at the bill itself so as to provide further comments and, no doubt, has his head around what is the intent of this bill.
The requirement is that the conditions applying to places of public entertainment are to be uniform for similar premises, unless exclusively provided for by the local council. This is, as rightly stated, an act that has not been reviewed for some 20-odd years, and it is definitely something we need to do under the National Competition Policy. We are also looking to provide an appeal mechanism for any person who is refused a licence to operate a place of public entertainment, and that needs to be in the legislation and to require …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, could I just remind you, you should be on your feet.
Mr AH KIT: Sorry.
Madam SPEAKER: We are not in committee.
Mr AH KIT: I am just wondering whether with this microphone that I need to bend down a bit.
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is fine.
Mr AH KIT: It is relevant to note that, as I said, the act was last reviewed in 1982. The amendments to the penalties bring these also into line with penalties in other Northern Territory acts. These penalties are expressed in penalty units, and show the penalties together with the relevant sections of the act. It retains only one offence under the act as a regulatory offence, and that is in regards to the exits of public premises.
Overall, this is giving us the opportunity to ensure, as the member for Karama stated, that the public is guaranteed against risk of fire, and has appropriate fire fighting equipment provided for the safety, amenity and convenience of the public generally. We have seen and read about other situations where soccer stadiums collapsing with too many people. We see and hear on the news internationally about other public places of entertainment where exits have been blocked and people being caught up in a catastrophe and disaster where lives are lost. It is certainly something that we do not want to see happen in the Northern Territory. There are certain places of public entertainment around the Northern Territory community that need to be brought into line. This is signalling exactly the intent to ensure that the community is going to be safe when they attend these places of public entertainment.
Once again, I thank the members for Macdonnell and Karama for support. I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Suspension of Sittings
Suspension of Sittings
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have a motion before moving to the next section of government business.
I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 89, this sitting of the Assembly be suspended from 6 pm until 7.30 pm on Wednesday 30 April 2003.
In speaking to this motion, I would like to explain to honourable members and to the people in the gallery that our standing orders do not provide for the lunch break or a dinner break. Lunch break is normally taken by way of convention. This evening, the government and all members of this House have been invited to a reception for our Emergency Services and bushfire volunteers to honour them and the work that they do for Central Australia. Over 150 people have been invited and all members of this House have been invited to that occasion.
It is appropriate, as this parliament is sitting for the first time in Alice Springs, that we use the occasion to honour the work of volunteers in our community who make such a significant contribution. That is the reason for this break in proceedings. We will then come back at 7.30 pm and resume the business of the parliament until such time as that business has had passage through the parliament.
Madam Speaker, I move the motion.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition does not agree with the motion. It is quite disturbing, frankly, that a motion such as this is proposed at such short notice. You are, and the government is, well aware of the plans that were made and the agreements that were made in the Assembly with regards to this sittings of parliament.
It has been an expensive exercise; an exercise that we all believe needs to be well worthwhile. The government flagged that it had a number of issues of legislation and business to bring before this House in the three days of sittings – and, I might remind members, a shortened sittings, in any case. I applaud a reception for the members of the Emergency Services in Alice Springs. It is a wonderful idea, but let us not forget that the business of government needs to go on.
I can give an undertaking that from the opposition’s point of view, we will not be calling for a quorum in that respect. There is an opportunity for members to go to that reception. You, yourself, received representations from me with regards to the fact that an adjournment would not be called, that the full business of the Assembly would occur in accordance with normal business. I believed that that was the situation. It is quite churlish from the government’s point of view to treat this sittings as some opportunity to have another cocktail party. We can provide members to be in attendance, but we can also ensure that issues such as the Chief Minister’s most important statement on her vision for Central Australia are debated by the members. If we do not have the opportunity - I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that if you look at the business that is before the House, the statement in itself requires considerable debate. Given the fact that there could be an adjournment forced on by government, it would seem to me that some members of this House may not even have the opportunity to respond to it.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, do you have to?
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): I will be brief, Madam Speaker, but it begs the question of who is being churlish here. I understand this question was canvassed in discussion and consultation with the opposition when we were talking about and planning bringing parliament to Alice Springs. It is a bit cute of the Leader of the Opposition to suggest this has come out of left field with no notice to the opposition at all. They have all had invitations; we would love them to be at that function. When we are talking about these people, these volunteers who put their valuable time aside to serve the community, they are deserving of commendation by the parliament, by government and opposition alike.
It is the opposition being churlish here. We have had a full sittings today, progressing legislation, and we will continue to do that. All the government is seeking here is an hour-and-a-half dinner break and in a civilised parliamentary world, you would like to think - and I remember the former member for Macdonnell, Neil Bell, it was one of his pet drives, that there ought always be a dinner break in any case. What we are asking here is away from the norm; we accept that. But so is parliament in Alice Springs. It is a little different. It ill behoves the opposition to not join with us on this occasion.
Mr Burke: This is not parliament in Alice Springs, it is cocktail party.
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon, Leader of the Opposition, I object to that.
Mr Henderson: We will let the volunteers know you have called it a cocktail party, Denis!
Mr Burke interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me! You do not have the floor and I consider that remark to be highly insulting to all the people who put many hours into this.
Mr Henderson: Absolutely, and they will hear about it as well.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Speaker, if we are going to talk about churlishness, there is some other information that should be placed on the record in this debate on this motion that has come on without notice.
One of the roles of the Leader of Government Business is to inform the opposition of what might take place on this floor, because the government, for those people who do not know, controls the business in this House, and to do so without notice, on short notice, is something …
Mr Henderson: You had an invitation two weeks ago!
Mr BALDWIN: I will get to the invitation in a minute. But it certainly does not hold you in good stead, Leader of Government Business, to run your business in that way.
As for the invitation, as our leader said, nobody takes away the fact that you should have a function for Emergency Services personnel - and it is a good idea - and you have invited all of us. But you set the time. Now, you have set the time to coincide …
Members interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, if the Whip over there would be quiet for a minute. You have set the time to coincide with a break that you wanted, that you canvassed with us, that we discarded. You could have had the function at any time you liked. So do not come in here using the excuse of a function for the Emergency Services as your excuse to have a dinner break. This was canvassed with us, the fact that you wanted a dinner break and we discarded it.
The other point that should be put on the record is that the first motion that the government wanted to introduce about these sittings, is that the sittings would conclude at 7 pm every night. When the Leader of Government Business put that to me, and I put it to our party wing, we discarded that on the basis that you, the government and you, Madam Speaker, were bringing to Alice Springs a full and proper parliament.
A member: Absolutely!
Mr BALDWIN: And you wanted to stop it at 7 pm every night, you lazy good-for-nothings. So, you retract it.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am pretty broad shouldered but it is not a precedent we want to see.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The last thing we want to get into is to name calling. That was out of order and I would ask you to withdraw it, and I do not want comments from either side.
Mr BALDWIN: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that they are lazy. The fact is that this should be a full and proper parliament. You tried to put a proposition to us to curtail a full parliament for the people of Alice Springs. We would not accept that, and nor should we, and nor should the people of Alice Springs accept that. Now we get, with a few minute’s notice, a motion to say you want a dinner break. Well, what is wrong with you lot on that side? Are you tired? What is wrong with you? The fact is that you have designed this, from weeks ago, knowing full well it had no support, that you always wanted to …
Mr Henderson: We will sit all night if you want.
Mr BALDWIN: I will pick up that interjection. If they want to go all night, let us see how much stamina they have, Madam Speaker - let us see how much stamina. This is the lot who wanted to have a half sittings down here, half of any normal sittings that Darwin would have, and now they want to waltz in here for a dinner break. Well, it is just outrageous and it should not be supported.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, before you speak. It is not often I get cross in this House but a lot of time and effort has gone into this. Government sets the business of the day, and it would behove us all to take advantage of these sittings, attend your rallies, attend whatever, and still let us do the business. It does not matter if we have one hour lunch break, or one hour dinner break, or whatever. We can still get through the business of the day. Would you please not start getting into a debate where you are name calling. If you have a reasonable argument put it. That is all I want to hear.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I thank the Opposition Leader and the Leader of Government Business for their contributions to this debate. However, I find it a bit hypocritical that they are over here …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The word hypocritical has been ruled out of order before. In the spirit of your advice to this House, I suggest that the current speaker refrain from using language which is inflammatory.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am going to lose my temper in a minute; I can see it coming on. I hope this a sensible argument.
Mr HENDERSON: It is a sensible argument, Madam Speaker. Speaking to the point of order, you have ruled that it is convention that if a member on either side calls a specific member a hypocrite, then that should be overruled. But, in terms of a position on an issue being hypocritical, I do not believe it is unparliamentary.
Madam SPEAKER: I will allow the member to continue his debate because I am not quite sure what he is referring to as being hypocritical yet. Let us not have a series of points of orders for grandstanding. Let us hear your reasonable arguments and get this motion over and done with.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, this is a hard-working parliament, these are hard-working parliamentarians, most of them. The government has always conducted business in this House with honour and put in the hard yards and put in the hours. That the opposition should be saying: ‘Look at these guys now, they are down here for cocktail parties,’ they are begrudging us the time to meet with the volunteers of the Alice Springs area who put in such hard work.
If they are so dinkum and keen to demonstrate to the people of Alice Springs that they are not here for some sort of cocktail hour, then I hope they are going to be staying here between 5.30 pm and 6 pm and not going to that politically inspired crime rally that is out the front. I call on the member for Greatorex to be staying in here. I call on the Opposition Leader to be staying here. Let us see them put in the hard yards, let us see them staying in here. Let us see them not go out to this politically inspired, unbadged - unbadged, you will not even nail your colours to the mast, which is a pretty gutless sort of thing to be doing. Let us see them staying in here. I challenge them. I challenge them to demonstrate how hard working they are to be here between 5.30 pm and 6.30 pm, and not one of them - which would be a change - to leave this floor. Stay here and debate. Stay here and carry on the debate that you so eloquently put that we are trying to duck.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, as one of the members from Alice Springs I had looked forward to this sittings of parliament to be a time where we can demonstrate to the Alice Springs community and the people in Central Australia what business as usual in parliament is all about. I recall the very words that you said …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Dr LIM: I wish the member for match bounce and whatever could keep his mouth shut for a little while.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Thank you.
Dr LIM: I recall your own words, Madam Speaker, when you addressed a conference of Clerks and officers of parliament that it was going to be business as usual. I recall a letter that you wrote to the members of the opposition - I do not know whether government members received it – in which you said that there will be a break for dinner tonight. I also know that there was a letter written back to you by the opposition stating that we wanted business as usual, so that we have opportunity and time for debate in this Chamber in Alice Springs.
In this morning’s paper, on page 2 is: ‘Good as Gold MPs Create History’ by Camden Smith, political reporter:
- The historic first Territory parliament held at Alice Springs began with a bang but wrapped up
yesterday with a whimper.
We started at 10 am yesterday morning after the ceremony. We adjourned at 1 pm and came back here at 2 pm and finished at 6 pm. The House was adjourned at 6 pm.
A member: We did not finish at 6 pm.
Dr LIM: The House was adjourned at 6 pm.
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: You see how this bunch of people over there calling themselves government do not even understand standing orders or the process of parliament. They do not understand. Let me say to you …
Dr Burns: You are a fool.
Dr LIM: I take that interjection, and say he stands up and withdraw that remark.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, withdraw.
Dr BURNS: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Dr LIM: People have to understand that yesterday we had a total of seven hours of work. Today, we started at 10 am again and adjourned at 12 pm. We recommenced at 2 pm and now this minister, the Leader of Government Business, stands up and says: ‘Let’s go away for another dinner break between 6 pm and 7.30 pm so that we can greet our volunteers in this town’. I do not have any problems with the government holding any sort of function that they want during this working time. They can go any time they like. Certainly, members of the opposition would like to go along and say to our emergency personnel that we appreciate their help and their services in Central Australia.
However, in this last two days, the opportunities for debate on particularly very important issues such as the Chief Minister’s statement on Central Australia, has not been afforded - and now we are going to take one-and-a-half hours away again.
Yesterday, we tried to talk about law and order and this government said: ‘No, you cannot’. Madam Speaker, members in Alice Springs - yourself, myself, the members for Macdonnell and Araluen - would like to tell Alice Springs people what we think about law and order here. We would like to tell parliament what people out there are telling us, the local members, about law and order break-down in this town. But, did we get a chance to do it? No, we did not.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We did not get a chance. We were gagged again and again. You would have thought that with such an important issue as a censure yesterday, the local members would have been afforded the opportunity and the courtesy to be heard so that the opinions of their local communities, the people who have been complaining to them, could be put to parliament. Instead, the government gagged us. And tonight they are doing such a thing again, but in the guise of having a dinner break, they say, so that they can go somewhere for a function.
I repeat: I have no difficulty with any members of this House leaving this Chamber at any time to do whatever they need to do, but there should be business as usual, Madam Speaker. You said it; we all expected it; Alice Springs people expect it; and here we are looking for a break when we had a break barely three hours ago.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I stood in adjournment debate last night in this House and already started criticising this government about the way they have approached the sittings here in Alice Springs. Indeed, they did seek to adjourn this House at 6 pm last night, before any of the Alice Springs members had a chance to respond to a very important debate.
The member for Greatorex is perfectly right when he points out that this government is trying very hard to gag a very important debate. In that debate so far, the government has allowed four minutes’ worth of debate on the issue in the last two days. We had to raise a censure motion which was gagged and then gagged again by this government, to try to be able to speak on the issue and we still have not been able to speak on the issue. This is a lazy government that provides an environment where ministerial statements, as a matter of course, get themselves loaded on to the Notice Paper, because they are too busy adjourning them, rather than getting on with business of the day.
I listened very carefully to what the member for Sanderson had to say. I look forward to him voting this motion down and voting with us, on our side of the House. I will promise him that when he does so, I will stay in this Chamber, and I will continue to work for the people of the Northern Territory. I understand that I get paid by the people of the Northern Territory to work on their behalf and to put in the hours that are necessary to produce the results that they expect, not to worry about the sausage roll that has my name written on it.
It is standard practice …
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. If you vote with us, I will be in here at 5.30 pm. I guarantee you. Come on! Cross the floor.
I will tell you something else. Here is the bottom line: it is standard practice to have functions while the process of sittings goes on. It has happened for years. You guys know how to organise it. If you cannot organise a function, you cannot walk and chew gum.
Madam SPEAKER: You realise, of course, this debate has taken us about half an hour. We could be getting on with business.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I will speak quickly on this motion. I must say I am very disappointed that we even have to debate the motion. All the government is seeking is a dinner break, so that we can honour the volunteers who fight the bush fires. The people of Central Australia know that they have a terrible bush fire season. These people go out and put their lives at risk to save the lives and livelihood of others.
As a representative of constituents who appreciate the hard work that volunteers do in the Territory, I must support this motion. I know that government is committed to pursuing the business of government in sittings in Alice Springs. We have done so despite unnecessary, disruptive censure motions. I know we are prepared to continue to debate statements throughout the evening and to go into adjournment debate far into the early morning hours, just as we do during sittings in Darwin.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion, because I honour our bush fire fighters.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): I must confess some anger also, Madam Speaker, like yourself. The last speaker patronisingly told us about bush fires in this region. My colleague, who is more humble than those opposite, was actually fighting them. He made himself available for some days. He, in fact, fought fires. For those opposite to say that therefore, in some great tribute to men and women of his ilk, that we have to bring this House to an adjournment, is tripe. Not fighting fires, not honouring the people, but for somehow saying the House has to come to a complete halt.
I have been involved with the parliament for some decades now, and I have seen possibly hundreds of functions held within the confines of Parliament House during sittings. It is a very, very standard practice for the parliament to tag team to make sure that people get there. When I received my invitation, which I have accepted by the way, I made the assumption that from 1745 hours to 1900 hours would be ample time for all of us to make an attendance.
I also note that there are also several other things planned for that time, including one that requires the attendance of the Chief Minister. Certainly, there is a rally out the front of this place that the Attorney-General has said he will attend, as I will. There are at least three things on at that time, and I will be attempting to get to all of them.
Nonetheless, my first duty is in here. If the bells ring, if I am required, if the debate is particular to my areas of responsibility, this is where I should be. Make no bones about it; this is our job. Do not hide behind the bravery and self-sacrifice put in place by our bush firefighters. That label also goes to my colleague, the member for Macdonnell.
I am also concerned because I got quite an extensive brochure that parlays exactly what we will be doing in this place. The Leader of Government Business has some explaining to do, because not only does the meal break not appear on this thing, but I note that after Question Time we go into adjournment. Therefore, his invitation that we could sit here does not accord with anything that is in this paper. He is making one amendment, and that amendment is that we take an hour-and-a-half break. He has to make at least another one, and that is that we go immediately into the matter that the Chief Minister thought was so important as to promote a statement in this House.
While we are on matters of time, I note that if the Attorney-General had been a little more careful in how he drafted legislation we would not have had all the committee activity that we had. There has been some hours spent mopping up sloppily drafted legislation. So, do not tell us that it has been a problem for you. This is your job – get used to it. When you are getting used to it, try to remember that the people who sit in galleries, and who expect us to be here, would expect us to be here for at least eight hours. They would expect us to at least find some way to sustain ourselves with food, to entertain those who come to this place and still do our job. I do not think that is very difficult. In fact, it has been done by all the legislators that came before us. I am sure they would be absolutely livid, notwithstanding what Mr Bell might think, to think that we needed to have such a break to sustain ourselves.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have been listening to both sides of the debate. I reluctantly will not agree to the break either. One reason is this official program that was put out …
A member: So, you are not coming either?
Mr WOOD: No, I will come. I did not get an invitation by the way, although I was asked by the Mayor of Alice Springs if I would like to come. But I did not get an official invitation, and to some extent the argument that this is put on for all of the parliament, I believe is not true. I am very happy to come; I fully support the volunteers. However, I just feel that if we were to officially have a break at this time, that the community knew about it, then why wasn’t it in the proposed program that was handed out before parliament sat?
In principle, I have no problem with a meal time. I said it when I originally got into parliament. However, that is not the agreed manner in which parliament operates. We have said that we have come here to do parliament as we normally would do it. It sends the message out that we are, I suppose, partly socialising. If this had been put at lunch time, as we had the barbecue today, or in the morning, as we had with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry this morning, that would have been a better way to organise matters.
Therefore, I am reluctant. I certainly will go there. It is a pity this has reached the stage of the debate now where we are seen as one side supports the volunteers and the other side does not support the volunteers. That is a bit silly. It is a pity this has come up at this late stage and that is also a reason why I would not support it.
Madam SPEAKER: I just need to say in support of the people who compiled this booklet - which was my staff in consultation with the Clerk and I - we felt we were leaving it open ended. Member for Nelson, you know in your briefing this morning, that we went through the business of the day, which included business after Question Time, if necessary.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, as a local member from Alice Springs, it is appropriate that I have something to say on this. The members of the government have referred to honouring the members of the bushfire fighting community. It is broader than that; it is about honouring the people of Alice Springs.
The government has said they have advertised and said far and wide that we will get a fair dinkum parliamentary sittings in Alice Springs, not the B grade version. By making this proposal, the people of Alice Springs ought properly be outraged and incensed. It is naturally offensive when, on the one hand, the government says: ‘We are coming to do our best by you but we are going to give you the B or C grade version of parliament’.
Throughout the day, I have spoken to many schoolchildren. I addressed a group of schoolchildren earlier. I told those children what parliament does. It is based on my understanding and the understanding I had when I came here on Tuesday morning and every day since. How can this government expect to be taken seriously by saying: ‘We are not going to give you a proper A grade version of parliament?’
In accordance with the diatribe and other advertising that the government has done, the people of Alice Springs properly will expect to come here between 6 pm and 7.30 pm tonight and see the doors of this parliament open. Instead, there is going to be a sign on the door saying: ‘Sorry, getting merry at a government function’. It is outrageous! When this motion succeeds - as it will because they have the numbers - they should hang their collective heads in shame. They should make no doubt that I will tell all and sundry what this offensive government has done, and that they have just shot themselves in the foot. It is actually an incredibly stupid, political decision, and the people of Alice Springs are not as stupid as this government. They will see it for everything it is.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I am aware of the time that this has taken, but I am required to speak on this. I support this parliament symbolically presenting itself as the agency whereby decisions can be made in our community. I understand the symbolism of it. I also understand the symbolism of the local government when they sat on the lawn. But symbolism must contain substance, otherwise it is empty.
What I take offence to is simply this: we had a function in Darwin to commemorate those who fought in the battle of Darwin. We did not adjourn parliament so that we could mingle with them; we continued with the business of parliament. We come here, and what we have - effectively demonstrated through this move - is a PR exercise for the Labor Party, when this is simply parliament sitting. That is the one issue that I take on this matter. I do not want to be part of an exercise that provides an opportunity for the Labor Party to parade themselves in this community as pretending to care and bring parliament to the people of Central Australia.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind the member for Blain, that with the Bombing of Darwin Anniversary ceremony, we did start at 11 am, not 10 am.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Let us at least get the facts right, is what I am saying. You were wrong.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, very briefly. I am glad you mentioned the Bombing of Darwin, because I recall very well we were about an hour late. We started one hour late, at 11 am.
As for how important the opposition considers parliament in Alice Springs, I do not have to mention the comments that we have seen in the newspapers and have heard on the radio about the cocktail parliament. Even a few minutes ago, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the cocktail parliament. For me, it is not a cocktail parliament; it is a real parliament. I am prepared to be here late at night, to work with you for the debate.
However, taking one-and-a-half hours off to honour people who spent 2500 hours fighting the fires in Alice Springs, is too little - including the member for Macdonnell who, once again, is out of line with the opposition because he is the only one who did not bag Alice Springs and the parliament here; he supported it. He is the only one who did not make any comments about parliament in Alice Springs, and I congratulate him for that.
Another thing: you said that we planned it. You were invited to this function. You received an invitation, some of you accepted, so you knew it was from 6 pm to 7.30 pm. Why then did you organise a political rally at 5.30 pm?
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I feel rather compelled to contribute to the debate. Members of the Alice Springs community, like the Darwin community, know that parliament only sits for 30 days a year. We are not the most overworked crew, so most …
A member: It is 33; get it right!
Mr MALEY: Thirty-three. This parliament sits 33 days a year; it publishes a program to all of the members of the public saying: ‘It is going to be on, you can come down’. People have made arrangements to come down at 6 pm to watch parliament; they have relied upon that program. We have heard some pretty weak excuses about attending functions. Well, we always attend functions; we are constantly attending functions; it is not unusual.
There is a ‘can do’ attitude in the Northern Territory. It is not an ‘Er, we can do after a break’ attitude. It is about setting an example. It is about not being lazy. I am surprised the lazy Martin Labor government have not decided to form a committee to decide this before it goes down. It just goes to show that the Labor government really is full of bludgers.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, I want you to withdraw that. That is highly unparliamentary in this debate. I did say we would not …
Mr MALEY: What word?
Madam SPEAKER: You know what word I meant. Withdraw it.
Mr MALEY: Okay, I withdraw the reference to bludgers, but I will say that they are adverse …
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw that comment without …
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I asked people to refrain from using unparliamentary language. Do not expect to get away with it.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I consider myself someone who is very serious about parliament and, if members on the other side give me anything, they would know that I am on the floor of parliament when it sits for most of the time - even since I have become a minister. I have endeavoured to be on the floor of parliament to try to understand how parliamentary business works. In that respect, I would like to think of myself as a hard worker in parliament.
We can take this break of one-and-a-half hours and still complete the work of parliament. I am convinced about that. I do not think it does us any good - it is ridiculous now that we have been debating whether we are going to have a one-and-a-half hour break for - I am nor sure how long now - possibly the Clerk could tell us.
That is the reason why often parliament and parliamentarians are held up to ridicule. As a parliament we should be able to show the flexibility that everyone else in the world has about ordering their business, adapting to change and meeting the challenges that are before us.
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I do not know Bill Coffey.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, thank you.
Dr BURNS: That is what it comes down to. I suppose, to try and finish on a light note and put things in perspective, here is a very interesting book that I picked up in Katherine the other day, it says …
Mr Reed: I told you to go and buy it.
Dr BURNS: That is right. I have and it has been very interesting. We will talk about it another time. It says …
Madam SPEAKER: Is this relevant?
Dr BURNS: It is Madam Speaker, I am coming to a conclusion very rapidly.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, you best because I am getting a bit tired of this.
Dr BURNS: All right. Sometimes nature mirrors humans and vice versa, and there is a bird that I found in there that is particularly interesting, and it might apply to some people here. It is called the Restless Fly Eater, so let us stop eating …
Mr Reed: It is not, you goose, you have given it the wrong name.
Dr BURNS: Have I?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: While you are carrying on like this, it is interesting that I received a note asking if the rally can plug in a small PA system out the front. I am sure you are all in agreement that they can, and they are obviously waiting for you.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to see that the opposition is really trying to impress upon the gallery that they are coordinated and organised.
We saw last year in the debate in parliament that there was support from the Leader of the Opposition for us to bring the sittings here in May. We saw that support again in February this year. We see last week: ‘Burke calls sittings bloody extravagant’. Now, make your mind up, fellas. You want to put it off until the end of the year, better budget priorities, because you want to get organised. You need another six months to get organised because at the moment you are uncoordinated. You have no strategy. You have nothing to work on in terms on your leadership. We saw the member for Greatorex make a leadership bid the other day in his little speech to parliament.
A member: Is this relevant?
Mr AH KIT: Yes, it certainly is very relevant to what we are talking about. We are talking about the sittings here and bringing it to Alice Springs in May as we promised; not to defer it. You are all over the shop. You are not organised and you need to get your leadership sorted out. If you do not, you are going to get caned at the next election. You cannot continue to be disorganised, you cannot continue …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, keep your remarks relevant to the debate.
Mr AH KIT: The remarks are relevant, Madam Speaker, in regard to the opposition to bringing parliament to Alice Springs. We are talking about …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: It has a lot to do with the current motion but, member for Greatorex. You find it hard to sometimes to get your head around a lot of these issues.
We have a situation where we did bring parliament here. It is not costing a hell a lot of money. Every one of the people we have spoken to has congratulated us. We see what is happening because they do not like us in their so-called backyard. They are very uncomfortable. We saw them being exposed yesterday with the number of questions that we got ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, we are discussing a meal break. Would you make your comments relevant.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Speaker, in opposition for six years, I sat and watched when there were hardly any quorums in parliament.
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have now on two occasions asked the minister to relate to the matter before us. He has failed to do so. He is ignoring your direction.
In accordance with standing orders, Madam Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion as proposed by the Leader of Government Business be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Baldwin
Mr Ah Kit Mr Burke
Mr Bonson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Ms Carter
Mr Henderson Mr Dunham
Mr Kiely Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Dr Lim
Mr McAdam Mr Maley
Ms Martin Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling Mr Wood
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: As Speaker of the House, I have not made public comment about some of the debate that has gone on about these sittings, but you are surely tempting me to. I really dislike intensely the negative publicity that has been put around about these sittings, when I know there has been so much generally for it. All right, we are doing ministerial statements, so do not tempt me any longer.
MOTION
Note statement - Development and Vision for
Central Australia and Its People
Note statement - Development and Vision for
Central Australia and Its People
Continued from 29 April 2003.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, it is my opportunity to comment on the statement presented before the House yesterday. I will move straight ahead without looking behind us to what just occurred.
The matter of education in the Northern Territory was brought into focus last evening at a function when we were able to mix with those who work in the field of education here in Central Australia. For those who have been involved in education, one knows the pressures that are brought to bear upon those who are involved in this most important of tasks. I appreciate the opportunity afforded to me to attend that function and to meet those who have been involved in education in Central Australia. I pledge my support to all those involved in education here in Central Australia and across the Territory for, as the minister quite rightly pointed out, there really is no more important task than ensuring that we leave our young ones better prepared to occupy a space that we cannot go - that being the future.
I will go through the comments that were raised in the ministerial statement and make comment on them as they arise in order. Before doing so, last night the minister made a football analogy in terms of Essendon demonstrating their true courage to send fear into the hearts of every AFL team. I would like to use a football analogy. There have been teams from time to time that looked pretty good on paper. They have all the support, apparently, in sponsorship. A team comes to mind, the Fremantle Dockers. On paper they are good; they should win every game. But, when they actually win games, there are few. And when they do not, we cannot quite work out why that is the case. The game is actually won; the form is actually shown in the result.
What we have here in education is a lot of activity. We have good form in what is currently in place, what is being spoken about, game plans that have been proposed, strategies that are being implemented, and reviews that are being undertaken. It all looks good on paper but, of course, my role in opposition will be to follow each of these reviews and each of these strategies to see that they actually do produce and result in kicking goals for kids into the future, and supporting our teachers who are working in what is, in many respects, an under-respected and misunderstood profession due to the pressures that there are dealing with education tasks day to day, particularly in remote communities and urban communities.
Firstly, literacy and numeracy benchmarks. I applaud the indications of progress that has been made, and I am sure it is going to be beholden on government to ensure that any minute progress in the literacy and numeracy benchmarks - particularly in our indigenous students - are recognised. I wholeheartedly support a proper recognition and publication of any kind of progress that we have. I make the point that I will pay particular attention, however, to how we measure the quality of our measurements, to ascertain that the benchmarks are benchmarks that we do understand, and fairly and genuinely measure in a way that parents can understand.
I also take this opportunity with regard to benchmarks, to make reference to an issue that was raised last year when literacy and benchmark results were passed down - that being South Australia and the Northern Territory currently in the state scheme of things have the lowest literacy and numeracy results nationally. I do not believe it is coincidental that the two states of Northern Territory and South Australia also adopt a continuous intake policy for Transition. This has been my belief, and the Speaker also shares this belief, although she was involved in the implementation of a continuous intake policy nearly 20-odd years ago. I believe it is that early childhood policy that does have an effect on our literacy and numeracy standards, particularly in early childhood and flowing right through the school.
Moving on to teacher shortages. If you read the language carefully, you will note once again the loud claim that there is a commitment for 100 extra teachers reiterated a number of times – last night twice. There is a commitment, no doubt. There are also, if you carefully read the language, 40 positions now in place – are they actually teachers occupying funded positions or are they just notional positions that have been funded? I would tend to agree with the Education Union that we are 40 short on our full contingency at this time. I suspect that even the minister finds it very difficult to get a clear answer from the department. It is very easy to play with numbers in the teaching game. It is very difficult in opposition to ascertain what the true call is. The true answer lies very close to what the Education Union is saying rather than what the department is saying at this point, and that which the minister will support.
You only have to go a little behind the scenes, and listen carefully to teachers to get some sense of the pressure caused by 40 depleted positions - somewhere around that figure – that brings to bear on the education enterprise is colossal. We have the whole system corrupted and compromised by short-term contracts, and by relief teachers who come and go. Further to this is the fact that this is the same issue this time as it was last year. I was deeply concerned to find that an announcement was made two weeks ago; a great initiative of the government to recruit teachers overseas. This is the second term of this year – this is the second year of this government’s opportunity to respond to this very serious issue.
It will take some time to embed a strategy such as this. Currently, we have close to 40 teachers short and we are now going to fit the wheels on to this strategy, when this very strategy was brought to the government’s attention in a bipartisan contribution to the issue of education last year, as well as another initiative later last year also: one being overseas recruitment and the other one being alternative career paths into education.
Minister, I would have to say that the issue is eminently serious. Compare it with what the current status is in other states and you will find we have a serious problem with regards to our teacher retention and recruitment. We need to get these initiatives under way in haste. They should have been on the road last year because we are now facing precisely the same situation. Going back, a commitment for 100 additional teachers – I do not doubt the commitment, but you have to find the strategy to actually kick those goals and make it happen. The commitment is one thing, it is words alone, it is just a commitment. You may con people who cannot really tell how many teachers we currently have, if you do not even take the time to implement a genuinely well-constructed and well-intentioned strategy to make it happen. Otherwise, it is just a nice commitment.
Going further, we have talk of an enrolment, attendance and retention strategy. That is good. I did refer to the number of strategies, reviews, considerations and task forces that are in place, and on foot. That is fantastic. I hope there is somebody there organising all these because there is so much activity out there in the playground, we are not quite sure where everything is headed. I will illustrate this as we go further on.
It is a nice thing to say that we have something called an enrolment, attendance and retention strategy. Then you see underneath that, they are looking for Commonwealth funding to make this really happen. It has good ideas such as getting schools to set goals and to align attendance officers to help them set their goals. Fine stuff. We need some grit in this to make it really happen. We need to be able to get educational communities to take real responsibility for this. If you have resources allocated to an attendance officer, give them the power to make sure that that actually happens and to change the culture of a school community and the attitude of those involved in it. Otherwise, once again, it is a well-intentioned policy that sounds good but will perhaps, I suspect, not result in any kicked goals and no positive result for all that which has been expended.
Alternative education programs were referred to. Fantastic. Once again, it sounds very, very good. It has been a title touted around the place that when you drill down, there is not a lot of cohesive policy, strategy or language that helps you understand what it is actually about. In fact, I believe that the minister would be hard pressed to actually capture the policy and the directions that are contained under this initiative. I take particular offence when we are able to tout things that gloss over the mind of the community so that they think something is being done about something that they are concerned about. It is our job to ascertain the quality and the grit that is involved in that strategy to make it actually happen. Otherwise, it is a well-intentioned and, perhaps, a nave statement to make.
Alternative education programs: I will be pursuing these to see exactly what they are.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr MILLS: I will pursue these, minister. Non-government schools: I am particularly interested in the reference to non-government schools. It is interesting to note that, in Alice Springs, close to 50% of the school population attend non-government schools. What I would like to comment on in is the self-managed community-controlled schools, a model that I see emerging here in Central Australia and also in the Top End, in Woolaning, with tremendous support from the Commonwealth government. The models that are emerging in these self-managed community-controlled schools should be very closely monitored. I believe they herald a way forward for our indigenous communities.
I raise some concerns with the secondary review. In this specific respect, I will hold back any other comments on the secondary review as I will be having a briefing shortly. However, as alluded to the other day, we have three high schools; we have a review in place and it is under way, and all that I have heard has been good. But something that has been operating on another level in the community, seems to be this acceptance of Centralian College is now a part of the Charles Darwin University. Okay, that has occurred, the relationship of the review to this restructure, I will find out, I guess, in the briefing. I put that to the side.
We now move to Palmerston High School. I hear a lot of talk in the community and education circles about something that has actually already occurred. Is this the case or not? That being that the senior secondary section of Palmerston High School will become a part of Charles Darwin University. It seems to be accepted as a fait accompli. The review is still in place. I have not had a briefing on this. Nothing formally has been injected into the system, but what I can ascertain is that it has actually been done.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Well, you have a lot of people out there who need to be put on the right track then.
Casuarina Secondary College, a completely different school - different history to the Palmerston High School; different to Centralian College. I hear precisely the same language being spoken of with Casuarina Secondary College as though this is already a fait accompli that it will be stitched into Charles Darwin University. Not that I disagree with the concept in broad terms. I am concerned that the review is up and running and that it has made decisions and those decisions are going to be wheeled through without any opportunity for the community to be fully engaged in what is happening in our schools.
On Centralian College, I take this opportunity to raise an issue that needs to be brought up. With regard to Centralian College with its IT capacity, I understand that, as it is coming into Charles Darwin University and with the opportunity to run law courses and IT programs, the capacity of the computer system that they have which is a secondary computer system, is not able to run these programs. Currently, to my understanding, the IT and law courses that will be offered through Charles Darwin University into the former Centralian College are simply not possible at this point due to an IT issue. I draw the minister’s attention to that.
The plethora of activity in the employment field is where we really do need a very clear game plan. Once again, there is a lot of activity. There is a lot of movement on the field, but how are they going? We have an Employment, Education and Training Reference Group for Central Australia - fine. We have a Training Remote Youth group, $1m from the Northern Territory government. We have a Learning Communities project; we have Footprints Forward; we have Indigenous Housing Association NT working in conjunction with DEET; and we have Desert People’s Centre. When you look at them, they are all interrelated. My concern is the managing of these. I would be wanting to spend more time in Central Australia to get a clearer picture of what is happening in this area. Once again, this is an area of huge need to make learning relevant to a vocation.
However, there is one thing that concerns me: if we have a lot of activity, we must be able to grab hold of outcomes in a strong way. Otherwise, we just have a sense of activity for activity’s sake and people may be conned into thinking that something is happening. I am presuming that one day we will be in government, and I would like to see that anything that happens here is something that we can continue with and take from strength to strength, not just to create activity for activity’s sake.
I am running out of time, but I want to make reference to employment. Reference was made to the employment and housing levels in Central Australia. I guess I am learning. If you are on that side there, you will spin it whatever way you want to produce the result that makes you look the most flattering in the eyes of a community. If you say in 2002, as you say in your statement, minister, in Central Australia we had house prices go up 11.5% and rental vacancies go down 5% when they were previously 5.6%. The fact is that you just have to talk to real estate agents today, in 2003, one year later, to see that is not necessarily the case now. It was on its way up; it was strengthening last year. This year it is moving back the other way.
The reason for that is simply the railway. The stage of construction has now moved forward, and that pressure on housing - which you then extrapolate upon these housing prices and vacancy rates as proof that the population is not diminishing. You are drawing a long bow there. You just have to listen to the playground talk; the talk that goes on around the place. People are speaking of leaving; you cannot deny that. I am sure you know that, but you spin this whatever way you want. The community knows that the population is going the other way and must be, first, accepted and then responded to.
Please do not do this to the community where you will pretend and try to tell them that it is not happening when, in fact, it is happening. You then say: ‘Well, it was fine last year, so therefore it is not a problem’, and then: ‘Well, the ABS figures are incorrect; their methodology is to be questioned’. What is a fact is we have lost $25m. Let’s look at the ABS methodology. Could it have gone the other way? Perhaps we could have more people, who knows? But always there is a reason for a fact that needs to be accepted at face value.
I recognise the initiatives to benefit the Northern Territory Public Service. I look forward to making comment with regards to the Northern Territory Public Service at a later date.
With those words, I commend the Chief Minister’s statement.
Mr VATSKALIS (Transport and Infrastructure): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am honoured to be a member of the government that brought parliament to Alice Springs for the first time. I am talking about real parliament, not cocktail parliament. Parliament will continue to do parliamentary work, and is a parliament that is prepared to stay late at night if necessary and, at the same time, is prepared to honour the people who offer so much in our community.
We have proven that we are a government for all Territorians - for the whole Territory, not just for Darwin and the Top End. We have also proven that by having community Cabinets from Port Keats to Borroloola, and from Darwin to Yulara; meeting people on there doorsteps, rather than having to travel all the way to Darwin. I have to admit that Alice Springs is one of my favourite places. I have lived in small places in Western Australia and in the north-west and near the desert. Alice Springs reminds me of those places, and I really enjoy visiting Alice Springs. Every year I come here with my family on a working holiday.
It is a beautiful place and many people who come to Alice Springs for the first time comment that they do not believe there eyes about the colours of the surroundings. One of my officers, for first time in Alice Springs, told me she could not believe that the colours of MacDonnell Ranges were natural. She thought they were painted on the postcards and on the photographs. It is a magical place.
I am also proud to be here today as the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and to have my department working very hard to provide work in infrastructure in Alice Springs. I will cover this issue some more throughout this speech. I would like to point out that since I became the minister, I and my department have total redevelopment of the Old Gaol site under way with a major new nurses accommodation program about to be built; we opened the Owen Springs Station to new usages and created two new reserves in Central Australia; and we negotiated the release of 20 hectares of land for residential development in Alice Springs, and settled the ongoing legal issues associated with that claim. I organised the major Mereenie Loop sealing program. As you probably heard today, we also allocated funding to continue the sealing of the Tanami road.
All this means jobs, and tourism and employment opportunities for Alice Springs and Central Australia in general. More is to be done and, as we speak, people in my department are at work planning and organising tenders and deciding on contracts. Contracts will be awarded to local businessmen.
Over the next couple of years, I intend to ensure that further negotiation with the native title holders of Central Australia in Tennant Creek, Pine Hill and Alice Springs will continue to allow for further release of land. The Borroloola flood mitigation program and road works will be firmly in place, and also the design and construction of the bridge will become reality. The parks and reserves of Central Australia are to be expanded and to be made world leading areas, and capital works will continue to flow in this area.
That is an outline of the major goals in my portfolios areas, but the specific details are as follows. With regards to Transport and Infrastructure, I made a very proud announcement on Monday of $3m allocated for the start of what will be a $30m project. Agreement has been reached with the native title holders and traditional owners on all issues with the Central Land Council and the agreement is about to be signed. We provided $1.5m which we committed this financial year to fulfil our election commitment to seal another 10 km of the Tanami road. This morning, the Chief Minister announced another $2m to further the sealing of the road. We will continue negotiation with the mine for contribution for the Tanami road but, at the same time, I am not sitting down doing nothing. We will continue sealing as much as the road as possible until we get a successful agreement with the greatest user of the road.
Other roads in the Centre - the link road between Lajamanu and Tennant Creek was constructed in the early 1990s. It is approximately 420 km long and constructed to four-wheel drive standards only. The survey of the existing route has been conducted and negotiations on clearance are yet to be completed. It is anticipated that work will commence in 2003, and the project fund is approximately $0.5m. The Barkly route and Elliott - we have called tenders, they have closed and the contract is expected to be awarded late April 2003, with an expected expenditure of $0.5m. About 27 km of road will be upgraded in the Barkly roads route and Elliott. Selected gravelling will take place on the Calvert Road. The tenders have closed and the contract is expected to be awarded very soon, in late April 2003, with a total funding of $0.5m and 22 km of road will be upgraded. The capital works expenditure in Central Australia is really impressive.
As at 31 March 2003, $32m was expended in Central Australia; $16.9m for repairs and maintenance and $15m on capital works, including minor new works. The forecast year-end expenditure will be $53.1m, a significant amount of money - money that we are not spending only on the Top End, but spent south of the Berrimah Line.
In Alice Springs, in the Watarrka National Park we constructed a new toilet block and water line that was completed in November 2002 for $807 000. The floodplain management of the Todd River was completed in February 2003 for $400 000. Coming from the airport, you probably saw the workers and the equipment working the channel of the Todd River. The Old Gaol development has been allocated $170 000 for the design. The car park at Kings Canyon will be constructed, with the tenders closing on 9 April 2003, and the current program is $400 000.
The Lovegrove floodplain management consultancy is in place and we intend to spend $80 000 to make sure that Alice Springs is not going to face a bit of water running down the streets like before. I have seen some of the photographs and they were really impressive. However, I am glad I was not here.
Traeger Park will be upgraded for $800 000 with a new synthetic turf which is now complete. The Walungurru regrading of the airstrip will be $650 000, and the design work has been completed. The upgrade of technical items of Araluen Theatre, with tenders closing on 26 March 2003 - $250 000 to upgrade facilities and equipment.
Alice Springs High School airconditioning: stage 1 is now complete and I believe, very shortly, that we will have stage 2 completed. Most of the work has already been done. I believe we shall be spending nearly $2m.
Tenders have closed for Kintore Police Station construction, and are currently being assessed. The total of the program is for $1m for a new police station.
We intend to upgrade the health centre in Yuendumu. Currently, we are negotiating with the Commonwealth for additional funds, and we intend to spend $820 000 of Territory money for the clinic.
The Alice Springs Hospital redevelopment project is completed. We have another $768 000 additional funding to finalise construction and the upgrade. Some of the equipment in the Alice Springs Hospital chiller needs to be revamped or be replaced at a cost of $700 000. Delivery is due late April 2003.
Alice Springs to Kings Canyon gravel and seal program is $471 000, and we are currently spending money on the Tanami road, as I said before, to upgrade the road and seal another 10 km for $1.5m.
There is some work on the Lasseter Highway/Yulara intersection - some of the tourist resorts and tourist icons in Central Australia - $300 000 to upgrade the intersection. The Hugh River Bridge is to be completed in June 2003 for $2.5m, and the Finke River Bridge and approaches, $5.5m.
In Tennant Creek, because Central Australia is not only Alice Springs, it is Tennant Creek: upgrade of the town drains - $400 000; the police station upgrade - $350 000; and the Tennant Creek Hospital Renal Unit design and communication has been completed - a total program in excessive of $0.5m.
There is quite a bit of money spent in Central Australia, on roads and some upgrade in facilities - money that is actually coming down to the local economy. I have spoken to many people in Alice Springs and business people are telling me that they are doing well, thank you very much, and they are not complaining. They compare themselves with the industry in Darwin. They told me that they are more resilient and, most of the time, they are out there actively searching for work and promoting their town. They also told me that in their businesses they incorporate a lot of scholarships and apprenticeship positions, which is really good to hear.
In my area of Lands and Planning, I am extremely proud of the efforts of this government in achieving land release at Larapinta. For a decade before this release, unfortunately, the previous government decided to go to court; they lost the case. However, we decided to negotiate and we have a win/win situation, both for the traditional owners and for the people in Alice Springs. Twenty hectares has been cleared from any native title. We estimate that, at the beginning, about 60 blocks will be released. I am very pleased to announce that, in the middle of next month, the engineering quote will be in place. We have consulted widely with traditional owners; we have identified all sacred sites and places of significance; and my information is that we will have more than 60 blocks in that area. I would not be surprised if it were nearly in the 100 mark.
Some of these blocks will be allocated for first home buyers. So we will provide for the young generation in Alice Springs. I can understand their plight. I was not given a home; I had to buy my own. They said to me: ‘You cannot afford to pay $80 000 for a block and $100 000 on top of it for a house’. I do not think many bank managers would give you that money, especially if you have just started your life.
The old abattoir site, another saga from the previous government – 10 years in the court – I do not know how much money was spent on lawyers. However, we managed to resolve the issue with some meetings and a hand shake. The owner of the abattoir site is very pleased. I am very pleased because the Territory has the money that was owed to Power and Water and we now have a situation where we have a block of land in a light industrial area that can be offered for sale for redevelopment.
The Tennant Creek Native Title negotiations: there are currently three native title claims in place within the Tennant Creek municipal boundary. We negotiated with the Central Land Council and the negotiation is very advanced for the resolution of native title issues within the municipality of Tennant Creek, and that will guarantee the continued growth of the town site.
The Pine Hill pastoral lease was purchased by the Territory government in June 2000 in order to secure horticultural development over the Ti Tree Basin. There are currently two horticultural blocks within the Pine Hill boundary. Three further blocks have been identified for excision, but the native title issues must be addressed before the excision can proceed. There is a claim over Pine Hill and we are discussing the issue with the Central Land Council for the settling of the native title claims. They are very, very well advanced in negotiation and very soon I will be able to make a good announcement.
Parks and Wildlife: one of the best parks in the Territory is the Alice Springs Desert Park. It is one of the few parks in the world that have received acclaim from Sir David Attenborough. If you want to see what Sir David said, have a look at the Alice Springs airport where the advertisement for the park is, where he says it is one of the best parks in the world.
I am very impressed with the work of my departmental staff at the wildlife park, especially in developing and working for an innovative apprenticeship program for indigenous youth in a joint program with Arrernte Council that provides training for young Aboriginal people as guides, horticulturists and zookeepers. It is a fantastic initiative. It gets people into jobs; it brings people into the economy.
We all complain about our young people and what they do, if they commit crimes. The reality is: what are we doing for the young people? What opportunities are we providing for young people for employment, apprenticeships, and education? When people have nothing to do they get bored, and when they are bored they get into mischief. Well, let us start talking about young people; let us provide job opportunities and education opportunities and apprenticeships for young people to get them off the streets. Things might change when they realise that, in having money you have the ability to travel, to buy a car, to buy the consumer goods you like. So, let us do something about our young people instead of continuously whingeing about what young people are doing wrong. Do not forget, we were once young ourselves.
The Ethnic Affairs grant to Central Australia - Central Australia was not forgotten. In the 2003 Ethnic Affairs Sponsorship program, 12 different projects were approved for $78 500. I recently presented the Alice Springs Islamic Society with $20 000 to complete the construction of a community hall. I have to say the Islamic Society in Alice Springs is doing something good for young people. The Islamic Society gets all the kids from the school, after school hours, and takes them into the Islamic hall and teaches them to use computers and software, and teaches them their history. That means 20 to 30 kids are not out on the streets when their parents are at work, but they are somewhere under supervision, learning something useful.
The Multicultural Community Services, formerly the Migrant Resource Centre of Central Australia, received $34 000 as operational assistance, especially after the Commonwealth cut their funding. I also provided an extra $2000 to assist with their move to their new premises in Parsons Street and $1000 for Harmony Day promotion and celebrations. Four other Harmony Day events in Alice Springs received $4000: $700 for the Alice Springs High School; $1900 for the Alice Springs Islamic Society; and $700 each for Sadadeen Primary School and ANZAC Hill High School. $4500 was provided to bring the Chung Wah Society Lion Dance troupe to Alice Springs, something that was very conveniently forgotten by the member for Greatorex, the Vice-Patron of the Chung Wah Society who, I have to admit, widely advertised the arrival of the Lion Dance troupe in Alice Springs, but nowhere in the advertisement was there any mention of Northern Territory support for the troupe. He conveniently forgot that. I believe he also very conveniently forgot to bless Madam Speaker’s office which did not impress her very much.
The Tennant Creek Town Council was also provided with $4500 assistance towards the Desert Harmony Festival and $1500 to assist with Harmony Day celebrations; and $7000 for the Barkly Multicultural Association to assist with a multicultural night and workshops during the Desert Harmony Festival in 2003.
As I am sure all members will agree, Central Australia is a truly vibrant and innovative region which we will continue to work to assist in meeting its full potential socially and culturally.
Definitely, our government is a government for all Territorians. The Berrimah Line has become a tourist attraction, rather than a line that divides us and them. We have crossed that line, and I do not think we will ever go back.
I would like to thank all the people in my department and in my agencies in Central Australia. They do a terrific job. I visit them regularly. I am part of their team; I feel part of their team. We can work together to improve service delivery in the Northern Territory, not only in the Top End, but in Central Australia. They are a great bunch. I have met them many times. I had a few coffees, I have to admit. Some of them were very proud to show me not only their offices, but their place of employment, be they rangers in Kings Canyon, the people in the Desert Park or the people at the Motor Vehicle Registry just further up the road on the Stuart Highway.
I have a big department; I have a great department. I have a department that does things, and I am very proud of my department.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion of Censure
Move Motion of Censure
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I notice that Question Time is rapidly drawing to a close. I have not been satisfied with the answers I have received this evening from the Minister for Health and Community Services. Therefore, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a censure motion.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will take this censure motion on board. It is the most important motion that can be brought before this House, so we will accept the censure.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask media crews to cease broadcasting and filming. To inform the gallery, the media have permission to film Question Time, but once a censure motion is raised, recording is to cease, and we go into the censure motion. We will not be going on with normal business until we have debated the censure motion.
PROPOSED MOTION OF CENSURE
Minister for Health and Community Services
Minister for Health and Community Services
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly censures the Minister for Health and Community Services for:
1. her gross mismanagement of her one and only budget which has resulted in a range of
cost-cutting measures which have seriously affected health services in the Northern Territory;
2. her curtailing of elective surgery at Alice Springs and Royal Darwin hospitals; and
3. her refusal to open enough beds in her hospitals to allow patients to be admitted to wards from
the emergency departments in a humane and timely manner.
I call on the Chief Minister to replace this Minister for Health and Community Services quickly before things become worse.
Madam Speaker, we all know, as do Territorians …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Although the government – and I may have been a bit quick to accept the censure before hearing the detail of the censure - had about three questions from the member for Port Darwin on the SARS outbreak and quarantine barriers, and nurses supposedly working without payment at Royal Darwin Hospital. We had one question regarding elective surgery waiting lists – nothing at all about additional beds, no questions about waiting lists at Royal Darwin Hospital.
It is convention in this parliament to prosecute the need for a censure. Members opposite were very keen, before we broke to honour our volunteer community in Alice Springs, to ensure the business of the House as appears on the Notice Paper is progressed through the House. It seems that we now have a censure motion that is totally frivolous and has not been prosecuted.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, be quiet.
Mr BURKE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, first, it would be instructive for the Leader of Government Business to understand standing orders and listen to the motion before he accepts it. What he did was jump to his feet and accept a motion before he heard it, and now he has the hide to suggest that somehow the motion was out of order. That is the first point.
The second point is that if there was one thing that was evident in Question Time this evening, it is the fact that members of government took an inordinate amount of time to answer the questions that were asked. The opposition spokesperson on health has a ream of questions she would like to have asked of the health minister, was not able to do it in the time that was available, and has now resorted to this motion which you happily accepted before even hearing it. Do not quibble about it now because you have already accepted it.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The censure motion has been accepted. Member for Port Darwin, continue.
Ms CARTER: Madam Speaker, we all know, as do Territorians, of the terrible mess this Minister for Health and Community Services has made of her one ministry. It is hard to believe that this is the very woman who told us all with glee last year that she is the best Health minister the Territory has ever had. How grating that boast must now be for her staff, for her Labor colleagues and, indeed, I suspect for herself. For I suspect that even she knows she has lost it, that she has to go, that Territorians, her department, her caucus colleagues all need to be put out of their misery and the Health minister must be replaced.
Since I became the shadow minister for Health and Community Services late last year, I have been deluged with complaints about the minister from her staff, and about the deterioration of services provided by her department since she took it over. It is my responsibility to put these issues on the record and to encourage the Chief Minister, the only person who can help us, to do something.
The Department of Health and Community Services is arguably one – if not the most important department providing services at a state or territory level. The provision of sound health services is the duty of the Territory government, and those services are currently being cut despite the minister receiving at least $80m in extra funding in the past 20 months.
In late February 2003, the minister released the long awaited review of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Community Services, known as the Bansemer Report. The Bansemer Report was damning of the minister in that it concentrated its comments generally to the previous 18 months, the length of her tenure at that time. It was damning, particularly of her department’s ability to administer and live within a budget. Where should the buck stop? With the minister.
After the release of the report, the minister stuck her head in the sand and mumbled: ‘Not me, not me’. Poor minister, she does not understand that the responsibility lies with the minister. As the minister, she should have called for this review within a week of being appointed to the position, instead of waiting nearly a year. And while she was waiting for the results, she should have been right on top of her budget. The Bansemer Report detailed to some degree, not to my liking, but highlighting a number of issues. These, you will recall, included comments like, and I quote from the report:
- They …
Meaning the departmental staff:
- … have a lack of budgetary discipline. Too many people doing little of relevance to the priorities and
objectives of the department. Everyone responsible for everything but nobody accountable for anything.
The minister never had her eye on the ball. She crossed her fingers and hoped for the best and the department apparently, according to Mr Bansemer, spiralled out of control. By the time this report was published, the author was predicting that this year the minister’s budget would blow out by $20m. As we know, the Treasurer bailed her out to the tune of $10m this February, and then I suspect the minister was told by her Cabinet friends to make cuts and come in on budget, for it is imperative for the Martin Labor government to demonstrate to Territorians a track record of sound budget management if they are to have any hope …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! There are too many interjections from both sides.
Ms CARTER: … for it is imperative for the Martin Labor government to demonstrate to Territorians a track record of sound budget management if they are to have any hope of winning the next election. They know that the economy, like law and order, are CLP strong points, and they need to match us in these areas if they are to win.
Therefore, the pressure is on the member for Nightcliff, the Minister for Health and Community Services, to only spend what she is given – no more prop ups. For the last half of this financial year the screws are on.
The top senior management of the Department of Health and Community Services has decreed, and I quote from a document dated 1 March 2003:
- The critical importance of Department of Health and Community Services managing within its 2002-03
budget allocation has been fully explained by the CEO to division heads and senior managers, and
achieving that goal is a key performance criterion for every manager in the department.
Then we get, from another document dated 26 March this year, the comment: ‘We’ and we are talking here about Royal Darwin Hospital:
- We are tracking at an overspend of our 2002-03 budget in the vicinity of $2m. It is imperative for us to
reduce this deficit.
So, the threat is there to managers: you must come in on budget. Royal Darwin Hospital, for example, is currently $2m over budget; it is imperative for them to come in on budget. The pressure is on.
The first signs of trouble for Territorians was the virtual halt of recruitment to the department. Week after week, we saw the absence of job advertisements in the paper. Now we have a minister claiming services like elective surgery at Alice Springs Hospital cannot be provided, or patients cannot be admitted to the hospital due to a lack of staff; for example, anaesthetists. Well, no wonder, if they are not being recruited.
This week, for example, I know at Alice Springs Hospital, the pharmacy is grossly undermanned with huge amounts of stress being placed on the pharmacy staff. The physio staff are way under, the result being that if the physiotherapist at Alice Springs Hospital is off sick - for example, last week - no service. Intensive care, I believe, has about eight or nine beds. Currently, it is really only staffed to provide service for about four of those beds. If you look at the nursing staff qualifications in ICU at Alice Springs Hospital at the moment, there are very few staff with ICU qualifications. As we know, theatre services have been curtailed and I am told the reason is because of a lack of theatre staff, and the staff who are there manning, I suspect, only one theatre, are grossly overworked.
Then, in Darwin, we are told that the opening of the multimillion dollar CLP initiative of the new extension to RDH was to be put on hold. A multitude of excuses were offered by the minister for this; from problems with the floor tile glue through to a dropped generator, lack of staff and, finally, it has been curtailed to save money. You can imagine how upset the staff of Royal Darwin Hospital were when this announcement was made. Given that RDH has days when almost 30 patients can be found lying on trolleys, stuffed into corridors for days on end, the staff were devastated with this announcement. It has been a growing nightmare for them over the past 12 months.
One month ago, a nurse rang me anonymously to tell me that when she goes to work now on an early shift in the A and E Department at Royal Darwin Hospital, she asks: ‘How many patients are waiting for admission?’ She is told for example, ‘13’, and she thinks: ‘Oh, only 13 waiting for admission on trolleys’. The new extension has the ability to keep patients in a comfortable condition, not on trolleys in a corridor while waiting for a bed. To my mind, the fact that patients are now having to wait days for a bed at Royal Darwin Hospital indicates that we need to reopen some beds upstairs.
Wards 5A and 3B used to be patient wards. For example, 5A was the old psych ward and, when we built Cowdy Ward years ago on the ground level, a stand alone unit, 5A was closed and turned into offices. Then a few years later, 3B was closed because the private hospital opened over the road and many of the 3B patients were women with gynae problems, and they were choosing to go to the private hospital. At that point they were closed because we did not need the beds.
However, now Darwin’s population has grown; Palmerston is now well and truly there; and we need more beds - even if the government only opened half of one of those wards. I did a tour of Royal Darwin Hospital a couple of weeks ago and inspected those wards; they only have chairs and tables in there. It would be quite a simple measure to close one of those wards to offices and reopen it as a ward. I recommend strongly to this government that they do that. What about opening the rehab beds which were shut at Royal Darwin Hospital, supposedly for the Christmas break last year? No wonder, given this was initially meant to be temporary, that staff are doubtful about what this minister means when she says the new A and E extension will be opened at the start of the financial year.
Of course, as I mentioned tonight in Question Time, I am very concerned about this issue of the nurses who are expected to screen patients for SARS not being paid. To my mind, this is exploitation. At the moment, they are being offered time in lieu - well, lucky if you can get that. For example, a nurse might have to get up at 3 am, go to the airport at 4 am, stay there for an hour or so, go back home and – hello - get up for work again or go to work at 8 am to work a full day. This is appalling and it is a real joke coming from a so-called Labor government, the people who are supposedly here to prevent exploitation of workers. Well, obviously, the exploitation of nurses is not a problem.
Why is it that patients and staff have to suffer because the minister blew her budget and her Cabinet buddies will not give her any more money? They are quite happy to spend millions on fixing up the Leanyer water park and hundreds of thousands tarting up or moving their MLA’s offices, and the minister sits quietly by, not strong enough to fight for more money or manage her budget in a way which would result in less suffering to patients and the providers of health care.
As you aware, Madam Speaker, the Alice Springs Hospital has not missed out on cuts to services. Recently, the minister had announced she was curtailing elective surgery at Alice Springs Hospital. Why? Well, apparently there was a lack of anaesthetists. Not true, I say, because if this was the reason, why was eye surgery cancelled? Eye surgery is done under local anaesthetic. There is no need for an anaesthetist there.
This is grasping an opportunity to cut back on patient services so as to cut back on spending. No operations means fewer nurses have to be employed. Nurses can be quite expensive, especially if they are being employed through an agency and, of course, lots of hospital support services like pharmacies, cleaning, pathology, catering have less to do if there are no patients. Everyone knows the old adage that the cheapest hospital to run is the one with no patients. But, hey, it may not be a problem for much longer given the rate that the people are now leaving the Northern Territory.
It is not uncommon for patients to wait many hours for admission to the wards of Alice Springs Hospital in the emergency department. Why does this happen when the minister could open up what was to have been a private wing for public patients? It is all ready to go but it has been either mothballed or, I have been told this week, has had office furniture placed in it which is a real shame. Alice Springs Hospital’s bed shortage could be addressed if this Labor government had a commitment to provision for the private inpatient services for the people of Alice Springs. But they do not. It is not in there nature.
During the last election campaign, Labor said, and I quote from Labor’s Healthy Hospitals policy - certainly the last thing they are now - but anyway, Labor promised, and this Health minister should have kept it:
- Labor is committed to Territorians having the choice to access private hospital facilitates and services.
Labor will work in a true partnership …
Gosh! Such stirring stuff!
- … will work in the spirit of true partnership with operators of Darwin Private Hospital and the private wing
at the refurbished Alice Springs Hospital. Labor will aim to ensure that Territorians with private health
insurance can access as broad a range of treatments and services as possible within our private hospitals
in Alice Springs and Darwin.
If that is not a Labor commitment to the private wing at Alice Springs Hospital, I do not know what is. But what happened? Nothing! The private wing sits mothballed because now that they have won the election, Labor’s true colours emerge and there is no way they are committed to private health.
Instead, their new Health minister - the best the Territory has ever had - declared in this Assembly on Tuesday, 18 February this year that, and I quote:
- There have been some very odd comments also made about supposed election commitments of ours. We
never gave a commitment that we would open the Alice Springs Private Hospital wing. We never made
a commitment to that at all.
Goodness! How times change. The bottom line is that the minister has not found the readies. She is happy to mothball this infrastructure; she is happy not to open some or all these beds when the rest of Alice Springs Hospital is chokers and seriously ill patients are waiting hours and sometimes days for a proper bed in a proper ward, not stuck on a trolley in A and E.
The minister gives the excuse of lack of staff for not being able to open more beds of Alice Springs Hospital. I say this Martin Labor government is not tyring hard enough. You will recall, as I know nurses do, that Labor promised scores of extra nursing positions at the next election. Since they got in, no sign of them on the wards. What does the minister say? Yet another excuse: there is a national shortage; there is an international shortage; not my fault; I cannot do anything,
The minister goes on as though the national shortage of nurses is a new phenomenon, but it is not, and Labor knew this before the last election. In fact, their health policy document on page 15 said:
- Currently, nurse wages are from 2% to 23% below the levels of equivalent New South Wales and falling
further. Yet, we all live in the most expensive jurisdiction in the country. On top of the national shortage
of nurses, it is little wonder that the Territory cannot attract sufficient nurses. Over its first term, Labor
will seek to lift the pay of nurses closer to New South Wales levels and beyond.
So, Labor knew all about the shortage years ago. They promised to raise the pay of nurses to beyond what New South Wales nurses - the best paid in the country - get. Well, we certainly wait to see how they go at the nurses’ EBA to be done later this year. New South Wales currently pays a registered nurse, grade 1 with eight years experience, $988 a week. Here in the NT, we pay the same level nurse, with the same amount of experience, $896 a week - nearly $100 a week difference. Victoria now caps the number of patients a nurse has to look after in a ward to a level which is considered reasonable, at a level where nurses can provide good care to their patients, so they can go home at the end of a shift knowing they were able to do a good job. I have heard that this innovation has proved very popular with nurses and has greatly helped Victoria retain staff, unlike the current situation in the Territory. I know of nurses planning to leave the Territory as a result of the stress they are experiencing from workloads.
Last week, a nurse rang me to say she had heard that at Royal Darwin Hospital there can be early shifts with only one RN and one EN to look after 18 patients. Now you can be sure, in this day of fast discharge, these will be 18 pretty dependent people to be cared for, so the ward staff apparently have to decide which care they can give and which they cannot. Staff are having to decide that they cannot wash people or make their beds. Now, I can tell you, staff will be stressed by having to make these decisions. They know how distressing it is for patients to have to spend all day in a bed without the comfort of a wash and clean linen. This is a standard we expect in Australian hospitals and it is a real shame that the minister is not providing the resources to allow such care every day and on every shift here. Even little things like the quality of equipment can affect the morale of staff.
I was contacted earlier this week by a nurse working in one of our Territory hospitals. She provided a litany of complaints about how cost cutting was resulting in the purchase by the department of poor quality stores. The department has a policy now which dictates that stores have to be purchased centrally, so I suspect these items are now being provided across the Territory to all Territory hospitals. She told me about latex gloves, which she described as pathetic, because they do not allow hands to breath and cause sweat to build up on the inside. The gloves are apparently made of a material which makes making beds with the gloves on more difficult than it was with better quality gloves. Perhaps not many people except nurses have had the joyous experience, as I have had, of trying to make beds with gloves on. This is what you have to do when you are nursing someone with a very serious infection - dare I say it will be someone who has something like SARS. It is a very hard thing to make a bed with a pair of gloves on because every time you stick the sheets in they can be pulled out again. You need decent gloves to be able to do it.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Ms CARTER: She told me that the problem now is that the gloves are so bad that the sheet always comes out, which makes the length of time and the frustration involved in making a bed very, very difficult. The member for Sanderson may find this amusing but I can assure you nurses do not.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Ms CARTER: Standard of debate, Alice Springs people.
Additionally, this nurse told me about how the usual hand washing liquid, which was called Microshield, has been replaced with a product call Avguard, which has an unpleasant smell and is very hard to lather. Also …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In terms of prosecuting this censure and wasting this parliament’s time what we were accused of before we broke to support our volunteer community, is going to cancelling of elective surgery at Alice Springs and Royal Darwin Hospital, and refusing to open enough beds. What this has to do with the smell of hand lather I have absolutely no idea. I would ask you to urge the honourable member to get on with her censure and stop wasting this parliament’s time.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you know that you must keep it relevant to your motion.
Ms CARTER: I am happy to speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I have just told you: relevant to the motion.
Ms CARTER: Point one was, speaking about the minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Well, we are still waiting.
Ms CARTER: … and speaking to the point of order, her gross mismanagement of her one and only budget, which has resulted in a range of cost-cutting measures which have seriously affected health services. I can assure you that the standard of soap, gloves and the other things I am going to mention, do affect the health services. I will go on if I may.
The gloves are made of a material which makes making beds with gloves more difficult. Additionally, the nurse told me about how the usual hand washing liquid, Microshield, has been replaced with a product called Avguard, which has a unpleasant smell and is hard to lather. Also, a new brand of face mask has been purchased for the operating theatres which were described as feeling tissue thin and the straps keep breaking when you try to tie them in a hurry.
These were just a few of a number of product complaints this nurse made to me. The frustration staff have with poor quality goods just adds to the stress they experience – a factor which will not help retain staff in the Territory. If we expect nurses to come to the Alice, to Darwin, or to work in our smaller and remote centres, we have to match, at the very least, what the other states and territories are offering in wages and working conditions. However, we are not, and this minister is doing little, if anything, to overcome the problem. In fact, I believe she is adding to it.
Labor promised more nurses for the Territory when they were elected, and they have certainly not delivered in any meaningful way. Now, this minister has the cheek to blame the cancellation of operations in Alice Springs and the failure to open more beds at Alice Springs Hospital on the shortage of staff. We all know the real reason: the need for this minister to do what she is told by her colleagues; to stop spending money and do whatever it takes to come in on budget because, in a couple of years, we will have an election and Labor is desperate to be seen as tough money managers, to be able to step into the CLP’s shoes. How hard it is, with Territorians suffering as a result of these clumsy cost-cutting measures - nothing creative in these.
I will bet the bad press the minister has been getting as a result of these blunt cuts has really set the cat amongst the Cabinet pigeons. I bet the Chief Minister is into our Health minister to lift her game. I notice our Health minister has more minders per portfolio than any other minister. They are all desperately running around trying to control the damage and, of course, the minister’s Cabinet colleagues will be getting stuck into her too.
The cuts to hospitals are causing serious problems. The wait for patients getting into the wards is causing serious problems. The pressure is on this minister. I am sure she is not comfortable in this job. The end result of her incompetence has been serious laxness and problems for the staff across the board in the Department of Health and Community Services. The only person who can help all of us - help Territorians and help the Department of Health and Community Services - is the Chief Minister. I call on the Chief Minister to remove the current Health minister and replace her with someone capable.
Madam SPEAKER: While the minister walks to the podium, just for the interest of the gallery - and I notice that we are losing some people - yesterday we had 1391 people come through our door. Tonight, before Question Time, we have had 1114 people. That means we are getting at least 1000 people each day coming along to the sittings, and that is great. The Minister for Health and Community Services in reply.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, it is very strange to be censured apparently on latex gloves and the kind of cleaning fluid that is being used in hospitals. I must have a word to the Medical Superintendent at the Royal Darwin Hospital, Dr Len Notaras. I am sure he may have an interesting response to that.
In the last sittings the CLP tried exactly the same tactic. On 12 February - not at the end of February, as the member for Port Darwin said; in fact, she is not very accurate on many things - I announced the results of the Bansemer review. That review was a terrible indictment of a decade of CLP health matters. Coming to government, we received reports on the worst health outcomes in Australia. We have the worst health outcomes in Australia. I and this government inherited a system in our health and community services that was so broken that we have had to take drastic steps.
All along we have said that health, education and safety in our communities are the top priorities of this government. There is no question in both our actions and where our money is - which is in our budgets - that everything has been directed in those areas. The health budget is the single largest budget for the Northern Territory government. More that a quarter of the budget goes into Health and Community Services.
I am always amazed by the way the member for Port Darwin talks about this portfolio, as if somehow it is a very frivolous and small portfolio where, in fact, it is the single largest portfolio with the single largest budget. When you look at other states and territories, there is usually either two ministers or, in the case of the Commonwealth, there is a large number of ministers and a parliamentary secretary looking after exactly the same portfolio that I do. I am amazed that the member for Port Darwin always uses that line, as if somehow this is a very minor portfolio. This is a portfolio which has very significant effects on all Territorians.
For those of us who read the Bansemer Report - and all of us on this side of parliament have – will know that it addresses the appalling management system we inherited. It talks about financial systems we inherited which were of such a poor quality that it says to us that many of the figures that have been presented to us are, in fact, not accurate. We cannot guarantee that they were accurate. The systems were so poor that we have had to totally replace them.
This government is taking the hard decisions which the previous government refused to do at any time. Taking hard decisions and sticking by them is what governments are elected to do. They are elected to do hard things in the best interests of Territorians. They are not elected to do silly things, which is what we saw year after year after year with the CLP. They would do a bust and boom. Every year, the budget in the health department would blow out by millions and millions. What they would do is they would take money both from the Treasurer’s Advance but, more sadly, from other areas of the portfolio. They would take money from public health, remote area services, and family and children’s services. Every year around March - and you can ask many, many people in my department about this - those areas of my department which were on budget and those which had been saving a certain amount of money to do particular projects, were told: ‘Excuse me, the hospitals have gone over their budgets. You now need to transfer that money to the hospital budget’.
We have said: ‘This is the line in the sand. We have to get these budgets under control’. As a priority, we put in an extra $15m into the health budget this financial year. This is a huge amount of extra money. We have also said that we have to find $5m in savings. Of course, this is a hard thing to do - of course it is. No health minister or any other minister in any government wants to have to find savings in their portfolio. Why would they? But what we are trying to do, and we are doing, is changing the whole culture of the department and of the systems that we inherited. Systems which said: ‘You can go and employ someone even if there is no money next to that position’, ‘You can go and do these things’, ‘You can go and buy your latex gloves or your special cleanser or whatever it is because …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, that is enough!
Mrs AAGAARD: We say we cannot spend money that the Territory does not have. This is a government which is very responsible when it comes to money. We are not going to be like the CLP and come in with a $126m deficit. You just told us before we came to government that, in fact, there was some kind of measly little deficit, but as we all know, $126m. We also have to get rid of that deficit while trying to change the management systems in our department.
One of the things we are absolutely doing is reprioritising the whole department so that money is going into places where we know there is a priority. We will make sure that all the areas which are essential, the core services of our department, are being properly funded. We will also make sure that those areas which have been identified as priority areas by the Bansemer review will also be looked at. These are areas which the previous government just said: ‘Too hard, too hard’. We have the sickest people in Australia in the Northern Territory, and this government is going to make sure that we do everything we can to improve those people’s health. I am sure the people of the Northern Territory would want us to do that.
More specifically, I notice that the censure motion does not mention the latex gloves; it does mention the Alice Springs and Royal Darwin Hospitals. In Question Time, I talked about elective surgery at Alice Springs Hospital, and note that the member for Port Darwin actually had just read her speech, and did not actually manage to change it, it was obviously too hard to do that mid-stream. But, let me just repeat, it is impossible to have surgery of any kind without anaesthetic; a very dangerous thing I am sure. I do not think anyone in Alice Springs would want that kind of thing to happen. As I said before, we have been very fortunate in being able to recruit two more anaesthetists to Alice Springs, which is a wonderful for Alice Springs.
Yes, of course there are savings measures; I could not have been more upfront about savings measures across the whole of the Northern Territory. On 12 February, I announced that we would be getting $15m extra into the budget so that there would not be huge cuts in health, and that there would be $5m in savings measures for the rest of this financial year. These people talk as if somehow this is news today. In fact, I announced it on 12 February, so they are a little behind the times. Maybe they would like to go back and read my media releases of the time.
In relation to the emergency department at the Royal Darwin Hospital, there have been a lot of very, very strange and fallacious stories coming from the office of the member for Port Darwin on this area. The CLP fail to mention, in every single statement they make that, in the new building of the Royal Darwin Hospital, they did not put in a cent - not a cent - for the recurrent funding.
Members interjecting.
Mrs AAGAARD: Recurrent funding. When you build a new service - as indeed we will be doing, making all sorts of new services in the Northern Territory - it is not good enough to just have a building. You can have the most beautiful building, but you actually have to have the people to staff it.
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, your interjections are getting disorderly. Minister, continue.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, the CLP, in their budgets, did not do any forward planning on this issue. They did not put any money for the recurrent funding for the staffing of such an expanded service. They did not even put in the money for the airconditioning or the cleaners. Obviously, if you have a much bigger area, then you have to have more staff - whether that is nurses or doctors or cleaning staff or, in fact, when you turn on the lights you have enough money to actually pay for that light bill or the airconditioning. Their budgeting ideas are very, very poor, which left the Territory in this terrible situation.
I have been very happy in the last two weeks to actually announce the schedule for the opening of the new building. I will be looking forward to inviting all members to the opening of that building, although I doubt very much that the opposition would be interested in coming, given their negative comments on this. However, I am sure we will be inviting you anyway, as we usually do.
The CLP does not even seem to realise that, in fact, it is not just that you can just go: ‘Hey, the building is finished, let us pop into there now’. There are actually a few steps in between and, in fact, even if I were to win Lotto this week and give $5m or $1m to the hospital, it would not make any difference. It takes a certain amount of time to commission the unit. In July, we will be getting online with the new theaters in the building, with intensive care, and with the emergency department and various other aspects of that whole building. It is going to be a fantastic new unit. I visited there a couple of times and most recently with the head of ICU and also the head of the emergency department, and they are very excited. They reiterated that they could not move in earlier than that anyway. They are very excited with the progress to date.
The member for Port Darwin talked a lot about beds. She talked about beds and wards which the CLP closed 10 years ago. Obviously, the CLP did not think they could fund it because they took the recurrent funding away. What they did not do was ensure that there was very good bed management in all of our hospitals. We now have excellent new general managers in both our major hospitals. From the beginning of this year and from when Mr Geoff Byrne started late last year at the Alice Springs Hospital, we have put in place very good systems of bed management. These are …
Mr Burke interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition. I remind members you are not to speak to members of the gallery.
Mrs AAGAARD: We have put in place very good systems of bed management to ensure that when patients come in through the emergency departments of our hospitals, if they require a bed then, at the first available opportunity, they will be given one. Obviously, there will be patients who are already in beds who may well be able to go home at 2 am or 3 am. However, we are not going to go about tapping people on the shoulder at 2 am or 3 am and say: ‘Excuse me, would you mind going home now because someone else wants your bed?’. It is unfortunate that there have been some situations, particularly at the Royal Darwin Hospital recently, where people have been waiting some hours for beds; there is no question about that.
The member for Port Darwin went to the Royal Darwin Hospital last week – it was not 2 weeks ago - and she went to the emergency department. We allowed her to go there, which was fine, and she asked the emergency department how many people had been in there waiting. In fact, no one was waiting for a bed at all - no one. She failed to mention that today. Not a single person had come in and was waiting for a bed at all.
In relation to beds and wards, you cannot just open a room, put in beds and throw a few patients in there and say: ‘Excuse me, just pop into that bed over there’. You need staff for those beds, and you have to live within a budget. What we …
Members interjecting.
Mrs AAGAARD: Territorians have to live within the budgets that we have. We have a very large health budget and the hospitals have large budgets as well. They have to learn, like all other parts of the government, that they have to live within their budget in the same way as all other parts of my department. This is not unreasonable.
There has been considerable extra funding into hospitals since we have come to government. I am certainly not ashamed of that. Yesterday, we had the story from the member for Brennan who was suggesting that somehow there had been too much money going into health. Today, from the member for Port Darwin, there is not enough money. Which one is it? Too much or not enough: which one is it? Eenie, meenie, minie, mo - I cannot work it out. What I do know is that there is a huge priority for health in this government and we are doing everything we can to turn around the terrible situations that we inherited.
I really must mention the private wing. Although it is not part of the censure motion, for some reason the member for Port Darwin brought this up. She claims that in our election commitments we committed to putting in a private wing in the Alice Springs Hospital. The documents say that we will work with the operator of the private wing of the Alice Springs Hospital. There is no operator. We could not have possibly known, in opposition, that in fact there was no operator, there was not likely to be any operator because no operator of any kind was vaguely interested in this service. What we do know is that we would have had to put in at least $1.5m of public funding into a commercially operated private hospital - $1.5m probably out of the Alice Springs Hospital budget.
If we had an extra $1.5m we would put it into the Alice Springs Hospital. Absolutely! But to put it into a commercially operated, 15 bed, unviable operation, that is $1.5m a year to maintain it, recurrent funding, and that was the minimum. Some of the costings were looking at around $3m. This is not a very good thing for the people of Alice Springs. If we had that kind of money, we would be putting it into the Alice Springs Hospital which we will be very happy to do, and there would be virtually no impact, I would have to say, in patients having a private hospital of this kind. We simply do not have the level of specialists in Alice Springs to have this kind of service here.
Once again, a white elephant from the CLP. They spent $1.2m on a building which cannot be used as a private hospital. We will be using it as consulting rooms for specialists. We are hoping that this will be a way in which private patients will be able to use their private health insurance in Alice Springs. I hope to make some announcements on that over the next couple of months.
Madam Speaker, I am starting to lose my voice here. I am quite amazed that, during the last 10 days, there have been no comments whatsoever made by the opposition on the matters which face Territorians and all Australians in relation to the Australian Health Care Agreement, the most major funding for Australian hospitals, or on Medicare. The member for Port Darwin, on radio, said that she thought that bulk billing should be means tested. She thinks our emergency departments are a problem. If we means test or do any of the things the Commonwealth is suggesting, our emergency departments are going to be much more overcrowded than they are at the moment. It is going to be the only free public health service available to Territorians., and that is an absolute indictment on the federal government.
I am very concerned about what this is going to mean. It will not mean more doctors for the Northern Territory. In fact, it will mean that there will be a concentration of doctors in places such as Sydney and Melbourne, where there is greater demand in terms of the numbers of doctors. They will actually be able to charge a lot more money, and that will be an incentive for them to stay in the metropolitan areas. It is going to be even more difficult to attract doctors to the Northern Territory, and this is a very, very sad thing.
I also think that what we are going to be looking at is that working families in the Northern Territory, the people who all represent here, are going to be much worse off because there is not going to be any cap on that gap. At the moment, you might be charged $44 or $45 when you go to the doctor, and you go to your Medicare office and you get back your $20 or $25, depending on what kind of service you had. That will still happen. That rebate will happen through the doctor - or that is what we think will happen; we have not received real details on that yet. However, there is no capping on that gap. There is no reason why the doctor cannot still charge you $45. There is absolutely no reason why they cannot charge that amount of money. This is really a way for doctors to actually receive more money. I have no problems with doctors receiving more money. What I do have a problem with is patients, Territorians, having to pay more for their health services.
We all pay a Medicare levy, and some of us pay actually more for Medicare than others because we are high earners, and that is a very good thing. However, working families should not miss out on bulk billing simply because the Commonwealth government will not put an extra $1bn into Medicare so that people can have access to bulk billing. I am very concerned that the CLP does not make any comments on that. They talk about the emergency department but they do not talk about the things that the Commonwealth is doing which are going to make it much more difficult.
They also do not talk about the Australian Health Care Agreement, which is about hospital funding. At this stage, it looks a very bad situation for all Australian states in relation to the Health Care Agreement. I am concerned about the whole situation. At the best, we will probably receive slightly less than we did for the last agreement, and this a very poor outcome for the Northern Territory. I will be going to Canberra on Friday to have a meeting with the federal health minister and other health ministers. And I can say to you …
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I raise the point of order not because I object to the minister ranging widely, but she is ranging into areas that not only are irrelevant to the motion, but also into areas where any follow-on speakers have no ability whatsoever to respond with any substance because they are not privy to any of the information or any of the calculations she might be making. It is quite impossible for anyone to respond to those comments.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point or order, and the minister does not have much time left anyway.
Mrs AAGAARD: Madam Speaker, the reason I bring in the issues relating to Medicare and the Health Care Agreement is because this censure talked about budgets. One of the key areas of the Territory budget is our funding from the Commonwealth. Obviously, one of the things we should be doing as Territorians, and as members of this parliament, is making sure that we work together to get the best possible deal for Territorians. I am very disappointed that I have not heard from the member for Port Darwin that she will support us in our fight for more money from the Commonwealth for the Territory, for our hospitals and also for our doctors. A very, very disappointing performance from the member for Port Darwin, very disappointing indeed.
Madam Speaker, I have actually run out of total voice now, so I will leave my statement at that. I have to say that this is a very, very weak censure, and that the glowing point for the member for Port Darwin was the latex gloves.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I join my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, in censuring the Minister for Health and Community Services. In doing so, I would like to dwell on a few points that she made in the ramblings that she spent 30 minutes on.
The Bansemer Report, as you well know - as all who have read it know - dealt with the period of the minister’s time in the ministry. Anything that she said about the Bansemer Report relating to the CLP is nonsense. Here is, again, this government rewriting history at their own whim. This is not the way to do it. Read the Bansemer Report and you will know.
A member interjecting.
Dr LIM: Obviously, you have not read it. If you had, you would know about it.
She talks about the blow-outs in the department. I recall, during the PAC inquiry, I asked the then CEO of the Health department, Paul Bartholomew whether, with the additional funding that was to be provided by the Treasurer, he would be able to stay within budget. What did he say? I quote: ‘Absolutely’. Absolutely, I repeat. And there you go: the budget has blown out and I wonder why?
This is the most incompetent Health minister I have had the misfortune to meet. Having been a health professional for the last …
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: Having been a health professional for 30-plus years, I have enjoyed my profession under many health administrations, both in the Territory and in other states.
Let us dwell on this first item of the censure: the minister’s mismanagement of her portfolio which has resulted in a wide range of cutbacks in health services. Remember that this minister has been more than adequately funded by the Treasurer to do her job. She has had a further $80m, according to government figures, although, according to ours, it is more like $120m …
Mr Kiely: Oh, that would be right, hike it up.
Dr LIM: Yes, mine’s bigger than yours. With her budget over the last 18 months, she may lay claim that she is the best Health minister that the Northern Territory has ever seen. The reality is that she is definitely the best funded but the worst Health minister we have ever seen. Value for money? I would have to put her in the reject pile.
Let me use some specific issues back home in Alice Springs. Over the last 20 months of this minister’s mismanagement, the Alice Springs Hospital has had to struggle to keep up its services to our community. Don’t get me wrong! I am not directing my comments at the wonderful staff that we have at the hospital. I know many of them personally and have worked with many of them intimately for some 15 or so years. These professionals have been the reason why the health system has not fallen around our ears. Their dedicated services, provided unselfishly and at great personal cost to themselves and their families, have bolstered this incompetent minister. Talk to the staff at the coalface. Just about everyone of them will tell you how bad the conditions are at work; how frustrated they have become with the difficulties they encounter while trying to deliver services to their patients.
The minister, standing at this spot a little while ago, rambled on about how her department has been run down; how they have not been managed properly in the past. She reflects on the professionalism of the staff that we have had in the department, people like - and I see Joyce Bowden sitting in the gallery, who has been the General Manager of the hospital for many, many years. That is the way she thinks of her department staff. Let me tell you that some of the staff are already planning for a different future in their working lives, seeking qualifications for employment outside the public health system, in preparation for moving to better employment conditions.
Dr Burns: They are going to go for preselection in Greatorex.
Dr LIM: This minister sits here, very sensitive when someone interjects occasionally. But, here he is rumbling on incessantly. It is about time he put a cork in it.
It would be a wonder if the Alice Springs Hospital Board is not in absolute despair over the minister’s attitude. If I were on the board, we would be trying all we could to ensure that the hospital was meeting its responsibilities to the community. That is what we would be doing. We would be making sure that the hospital was meeting all its commitments and responsibilities to the community. I wonder if the minister ever listens to her board. I wonder if minister actually understands the role that her board has in regards to health care in Alice Springs. This minister’s incompetence has been the reason why she has not rectified the health system which she described as ‘one that is in crisis’ and I will show you this newspaper photocopy. ‘We have a health crisis, but I will fix it,’ she said.
Mr Dunham: What was the date?
Dr LIM: This was on Tuesday, 28 May 2002.
Mr Dunham: A year ago!
Dr LIM: Well, let us give her a bit of credit, 11 months ago. And what has she done? This minister has to be removed, Chief Minister, if, after having described our health system as being in a crisis, she has not been able to improve the system after a huge additional budget allocation over the last 18 months.
Remember, when we first heard that paramedics had been sought to fill vacancies in rosters at the emergency department? To date, she has not been able to keep to her promise to deliver 75 new nurses for our health system, albeit over the term of four years. She has been unable to find enough nurses, she tells us. All she can depend on at the moment are agency nurses who come in on short-term contracts and on their termination, leave another hole to be filled, yet again, by another agency nurse. Imagine the cost of recruitment and relocation of each individual.
I know for sure that she is making savings from salaries through the non-recruitment of anaesthetists to replace those who have left or are on long-term recreation leave from the hospital. I would not have any problems with non-recruitment or replacement of staff on leave if normal services could still be provided. It was not until she was dragged screaming that she ended up recruiting two new anaesthetists. Using the lack of anaesthetists as a reason …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Members, order! Order! Chief Minister and member for Drysdale, enough of that cross-Chamber chat. The member for Greatorex has the floor.
Dr LIM: Using the lack of anaesthetists as the reason, the minister closed down elective surgery at Alice Springs Hospital. This is the second point in the censure. The Health minister cancelled elective surgery at the hospital on April Fool’s day, so the lack of anaesthetists and the approach of long weekends of Easter and Anzac Day was a time when there will be fewer staff in the hospital; she gave the same public holidays as the reason for closing down elective surgery at Royal Darwin Hospital.
I have worked here since 1981 and I cannot recall a time when elective surgery was cancelled over Easter or Anzac Day due to staff movements. The minister knew as early as September last year that one of the senior anaesthetists would be going on long service leave and not likely to return. From a full complement of six anaesthetists, the Alice Springs Hospital went down to three. It is no wonder elective surgery had to be cancelled. What galls me is that she knew well in advance that these anaesthetists were going on holidays, yet did nothing to replace them.
It was not until we raised the issue recently that she started to commence recruitment. It is just another cynical exercise to save money to meet the budget line through salary savings. The government then has the gall to turn around and tell Alice Springs: ‘You cannot have elective surgery’. The minister has imposed restrictions of medical services throughout the community to keep within the budget. In other words, the Northern Territory is now rationing health care.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a responsibility incumbent on members in this House to tell the truth. We hear from the Health minister that elective surgery at Alice Springs has not been cancelled; it has been slowed. The member for Greatorex persists with this fabrication that elective surgery has been cancelled in Alice Springs. I challenge him to produce evidence of that fact. Otherwise, he is misleading this parliament. He is not telling the truth to this parliament and he is a disgrace to this parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you know the minister has the option to come back and seek from you an explanation of what you are saying to verify your facts. But in this debate it would be good if we stuck to the facts and actually got on with it.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, while it is costing me my own time, I have been in this parliament long enough to know that it is a very grave problem to lie to the House, and I do not intend to do that. This minister is on his feet, calling me a liar when there is no substantive motion against me. He should not be doing that. He should withdraw and allow me to speak in peace.
Madam SPEAKER: He was asking you, member for Greatorex, to verify what you were saying. I suggest you just get on with the debate.
Dr LIM: I have made a point and the minister can prove me wrong.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Move on.
Dr LIM: This government is now rationing health care in the Northern Territory. Thus, this cynical exercise of cancelling elective surgery, saying that there are not enough doctors providing anesthesia. While the minister tried to explain about local anesthesia in eye surgery, I suggest she gets a better briefing. I know, minister, about the sort of local anaesthetic procedure used for eye surgery - you do not need an anaesthetist to be present. You have to have one hanging about, yes, but not present in the theatre. So, why have you cancelled elective surgery for eyes except to stop elective surgery and thus save money?
What do you tell the patient who has had his or her elective surgery cancelled time and time again? Do you know, or do you even care that people have to make a huge amount of arrangements so as to have time to get to hospital for surgery and the post-operative recovery period? They formally organise leave from work, their families have to be organised around the patient - all that is thrown into disarray when you cancel the booking for the operation. How about the many patients who are already in hospital, fasted overnight, at least 24 hours, in anticipation of surgery, then to have it cancelled at the last minute? Do you know how they feel? Perhaps you should follow, minister, your Chief Minister’s example in support of the 40 hour famine. You might want to join the patients who fast overnight each 24 hours, for 12 hours at a time, for several days, and experience what it is like.
It is bad enough that one is lying in a bed in anticipation of surgery, often of life-altering import, worried about how it will go, how one will recover, how one’s family will deal with the event, and how will one cope with the aftermath of the procedure. After a restless and worrying night and a hungry morning, one is then told the operation is off - maybe it might be on the next day, and the whole process starts all over again.
Minister, this is what you are doing to the people of my community, and that is not good enough. Minister, why don’t you just close down the hospital altogether, sack all the staff and you will save millions of dollars? You can then claim back your self-appointed title of the best Health minister in the Northern Territory. The minister for a health system that services no patients. You are bad as the Health minister, you are fatal for the health department. It is time your Chief Minister recognises that you have to be put out of your misery, dropped from your responsibility and put in someone who is more capable. I know the member for Arafura is chafing at the bit to jump into your seat.
The Alice Springs Hospital was refurbished to meet the growing needs of the community – a wing was constructed so that people could elect for private hospitalisation if they chose to do so. Your party promised that you would open the private hospital in Alice Springs if you came to government. As soon as you are in government you refuse to go on with it. It is another broken election promise. It is now full of desks and chairs instead of hospital beds.
The minister knows full well that many people have had to wait long hours, often stretching to days, for a bed in a ward. Your refusal to open more beds that are available to you is causing unnecessary pain and suffering - the third point in the censure. You call that quality health care – if you do, then you truly do not understand what health care means.
I ask the minister when she will deliver the private hospital facilities. Do not blame everyone and everything around you for your inability to manage. Admit it is your philosophical antipathy to a private hospital system that is preventing the successful private hospital outcome for Alice Springs. If you want to deliver, you would and you could. In the meantime, instead of filling up the private hospital wing with chairs and desks, the health minister should fill the ward with beds for patients waiting for hospitalisation; make it into a general public ward for the time being. But then the Health minister will make the excuse that she does not have enough nurses to go around. I wonder how, then, her promise for 75 new nurses is going to be fulfilled? You really have made a mess of the hospital system, haven’t you, minister?
At the refurbishment of the Alice Springs Hospital, a new building was constructed to the right of the emergency department. The building housed a newly formed, fully staffed, rehabilitation service which is now reduced to a skeleton of its former self. What was intended by the CLP government as a full rehab service is now a limited service. When I went public on it, all the response we got was a play of words talking about rehabilitation units, rehabilitation wards and rehabilitation services, as if all were one and the same. Well, they are not the same, minister, if you do understand. You can have a limited rehabilitation service just using a physiotherapist or an occupational therapist. You can have a physiotherapist or an occupational therapist and label it a limited rehabilitation unit. You can have a building or a room with a physiotherapist or an occupational therapist and call it a limited rehabilitation ward.
Minister, what Alice Springs needs, and was intended to be provided by the former CLP government, is a full rehab service with all the specialised equipment and staff in one location, accessible by both in-hospital patients and the general public by referral. Talking about occupational therapists, we have not had the services of one in Alice Springs for a long time. War widows needing the assessment of an OT before they can get services from the repat system are now suffering as they cannot get assessed. I know an elderly lady at the Old Timer’s was put under great stress because of the lack of an OT. When are you going to get off your hands to get an OT for our town? How long do we have to wait until we have basic services that any other Australian in a similar sized regional centre can expect?
The minister says she cares, but her actions belie her words. No action on her part has made our health care any better. Were it not for the dedication of the health and allied health professionals and the rest of the staff at the Alice Springs Hospital - from the hospital board to the lowest employed person at the hospital - health service provision at the hospital would have come to a standstill a long, long time ago. I know of staff who work shifts for the hospital and have not been paid for weeks, and at least one not paid for nearly four months. That is a disgrace. The minister can sit in a comfortable office holding down a very well paid job, getting money in the bank every two weeks regularly while the average hospital worker cannot get paid. even when some of the salaries come from the federal government and are already in the hands of the government. Minister, do you know or even care whether a family is struggling on limited wages and waiting for months for their hard earned salary - money which you have retained?
Central Australians have much to thank the staff at the hospital, and the public health system, for the unstinting effort they put into their work to prop up the system and prop up the worst health minister that I have had the misfortune to come across in my 30-plus years in the medical profession.
We heard about the minister’s call to our nursing staff to volunteer their time to meet aircraft from overseas to screen incoming passengers for any signs of SARS. She is asking for volunteers. What is this minister’s priority? Does she know the burden she is imposing on our already overworked staff? Is this a patchwork health system that is to be buttressed by volunteers? No, minister, this health system is the only one we have in the Territory. In Alice Springs, it is the only public health system that we rely on.
You are not capable of doing the job; the Chief Minister must replace you now. The Northern Territory health system cannot afford you any longer. You are in the terminal phase of your career; it is time for you to go. And. for all our sakes, Chief Minister, replace your Health minister.
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, it certainly gives me no pleasure to stand in here tonight to speak in response to what has to be the worse prosecuted censure that this House has seen for many, many years. I am a new person here, only having been in parliament for four years, but this really was an appalling prosecution of a health system that is supposedly in crisis, if you listen to members opposite. Members opposite who have spoken in this debate were unable to substantiate one allegation that they made.
It is interesting that if you tell a misrepresentation - because I cannot say the word ‘lie’ - often enough, people might believe you. There is no evidence to show - none whatsoever - that elective surgery has been cancelled at Alice Springs Hospital. I challenged the member for Greatorex to prove this evidence and he was unable to do so. I am sure that the people of Alice Springs and the people in this parliament will see him for what he is: running any old line and hoping he can get away with it. Well, he cannot get away with it. He is unable to substantiate his allegation that elective surgery has been cancelled at Alice Springs Hospital.
At the end of the day, there is not one government in Australia or the western world that ….
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Just cease for a moment, minister. Member for Drysdale, I have already spoken to you a number of times this evening, so I am giving you a warning. Minister.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, there is not one government in Australia or the western world that is not struggling with the rising costs of health care. It is an issue faced by every community. At the end of the day, we as a government will put whatever we can into supporting our health system in the Northern Territory. However, it comes upon the back of an appalling legacy of failing to fund our health system in the Northern Territory that we inherited from the previous government - a previous government that failed consistently to fund the health system to the tune of at least $10m a year and every year of additional funding that they had to put in.
There was not only a failure to put the funding in, but misrepresenting to the people of the Northern Territory what they actually were putting into the health system. I take honourable members back to the week immediately post the election of the Labor government in August 2001 when the then Under Treasurer approached the new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to inform her that the deficit faced by the Territory budget for the 2001-02 financial year was not $14m as had appeared in the budget papers just some eight weeks earlier. It was, in fact, over $100m in terms of the deficit that was projected.
On the back of that, my colleague, the Health minister, then spoke to her CEO at the time to uncover the issues regarding underfunding in the health budget. For members’ memory and for the people of Alice Springs who might not have heard this sad and sorry tale about underfunding and the misrepresentation in the budget papers of what they were actually putting into the health budget, I would like to quote from a memo from the then CEO of Territory Health Services to the Health minister about the state of the Territory health budget and how it had been formed for the 2001-02 budget that appeared eight weeks before the election. I quote - this letter has been tabled in the House before:
- Attached as requested is an explanation of THS budget situation for 2000-01 and 2001-02 as compared
to that presented in the last budget papers. In summary, there was an artificial reduction of $8m in
Territory Health Services’ 2000-01 budget in order that the 2001-02 budget could be presented falsely …
This is from the CEO of the Health department:
- … presented falsely, as a 2.5% increase. In reality, Territory Health Services 2001-02 budget represents
a reduction on the final 2000-01 approved budget.
A reduction, Madam Speaker:
- The attached papers also demonstrate that in reality, THS final actual expenditure for 2000-01 was
contained within the approved budget.
My first knowledge of this situation was when I was in Sydney on official business on 9 May 2001. I
received a telephone call from the Under Treasurer, Ken Clarke, who informed me the Treasurer …
The member for Katherine:
- … intended to adjust Territory Health Services’ final budget figure for 2000-01 so that the following year’s
budget …
The pre-election budget, Madam Speaker:
- … could artificially be shown as providing an increase at least equivalent to CPI.
Artificially shown. This is the CEO of the Health department acting under instruction from the Under Treasurer, under instruction from the Treasurer.
- Mr Clarke informed me that this should be kept confidential.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This has been the subject of a censure debate already. He is reflecting on a previous debate of this House. This censure is on the Health minister, Madam Speaker, and not this. However, I will be quite happy at another time to readdress this issue; it is entirely off the record.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I can understand why the member for Drysdale is so sensitive about this because he is right in the frame, and there it comes from the letter …
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Order! Minister, withdraw that remark.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, that is enough, you are on a warning already.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
- Mr Clarke informed me that this should be kept confidential within THS, and it was agreed would liaise
with designated Treasury staff on the necessary adjustments to the budget figures. On receipt of this message,
I expressed considerable concern to Mr Clarke and informed him that I would need to discuss this with my
minister, the member for Drysdale. I rang Minister Dunham and expressed my alarm at this proposed deception.
These are pretty strong words coming from a CEO:
- I advised him that, in my view, this arrangement would undoubtedly be discovered in the due course by
the Auditor-General and would reflect poorly on THS and the minister. In addition, I expressed concern
that as a consequence of these artificial adjustments, THS would seem to be exceeding its approved budget
by $8m when this was demonstrably not the case.
- Mr Dunham expressed serious alarm at the information I conveyed to him, and he indicated he wished to be
kept informed of all developments. The minister was continually kept informed as the budget process continued,
but there was no change in the decision to artificially reduce the $8m in the 2000-01 budget.
Madam Speaker, an absolute travesty of parliamentary democracy and accountability, when the people of the Northern Territory were misled comprehensively by the former government in regards to the Territory Health Services budget. This letter then led to a Public Accounts Committee inquiry to get to the bottom of what actually happened with the 2001-02 budget. I read from the Public Accounts Committee inquiry where the then Under Treasurer, Mr Ken Clarke, was before the inquiry:
- Mr Chairman: You detailed a conversation that you had with the Treasurer, Mr Reed. It occurred at the height
of the budget finalisation process and basically just paraphrasing what Mr Reed has said, or what you have
written there in your submission you said that in May 2001, Mr Reed, as Treasurer, became concerned about
the lack of growth in the 2001-02 budget numbers for health, education and police. Is that correct?
- Mr Clarke: Lack of growth. He was concerned about the comparison between one year and next – yes, I guess
that is correct!
Mr Chairman: Yes. And then subsequent to that meeting and on Mr Reed’s direction, ultimately at his direction,
the estimated expenditures for the 2000-01 year for health, education and police that were originally circulated
in May or March were reduced so that growth could be apparent?
Mr Clarke: So that growth could be apparent, I suppose that is correct. Yes.
Mr Chairman: So I guess at the bottom of my question is, without Mr Reed’s intervention, would those
budget estimate figures gone forward in the budget papers unchanged?
Mr Clarke: Yes they would have.
Mr Chairman then went on to say:
- Thanks, Mr Clarke. I have a couple of questions following on from this.
Dr Lim: Can I just follow on the question you have just asked: Will the Treasurer always intervene on
Treasury’s figure on any budget in the sense that he gives directions to Treasury?.
Mr Clarke: Oh no, no.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr HENDERSON: Oh no! Dr Lim trying to be helpful, I mean, this was a particular concern for him.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, ‘Oh, no, no, no’, said Mr Clarke.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker!. That has to be withdrawn, it is unparliamentary.
Mr STIRLING: Absolutely true, but I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Do try to restrain yourself.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, Mr Clarke then went on to say:
- I mean, this was a particular concern for him, the Treasurer, and this is what he said to me – it was a
particular concern. I interpreted it as being because it was an election year.
Yes, we are not denying there are problems with the health budget in the Northern Territory and we are putting all the resources that we can find to addressing health issues in the Northern Territory. However, I can assure Territorians that we will be honest with them about the state of the health budget and the budget in general. We will not misrepresent the budget to Territorians and take them for fools just because it is an election year and they want to show increased spending in an election year.
There is no doubt that health has funding issues and we will do all we can to put additional resources into health. But, in the same way that the previous Health minister and the previous Treasurer misled the people of the Northern Territory about the budget - and so conclusively have been proved to do so - the member for Greatorex continues in the same regard. They have not learned. They are still the same old arrogant CLP of old. He trapezes in here and makes allegations about elective surgery being cancelled in Alice Springs and produces no evidence to show that, even though the minister does agree because of staff shortages, elective surgery has been slowed down.
There are numerous examples, and we could get health to show – they have other things to do – over the term of the 26 years of CLP government, where elective surgery during times of difficulty to recruit staff has been slowed down. This is nothing new in the Northern Territory; it is difficult to recruit staff to the Northern Territory. It always has been; it probably will be for the foreseeable future. We have a huge nursing shortage across Australia. Australia overall has a shortage of about 5000 nurses in its public system and that shortage will, at times, lead to delays in procedures. However, our commitment to nurses immediately after we won the election was an 11% pay rise over two years; a pay rise that the previous government failed to negotiate. I presented a petition to this parliament in the lead-up to the last election where hundreds of nurses at Royal Darwin Hospital complained most bitterly of the way they were treated by the previous minister and the previous government in trying to negotiate their EBA. Our nurses, at the time when we allocated that 11% pay rise, were the best paid in Australia. They are now the second best paid because New South Wales has negotiated a 15% pay rise. We are now the second best paid to New South Wales.
We have also introduced a professional development career structure to try to keep our nurses in the Northern Territory. We are absolutely committed to providing career paths for all our medical officers, nurses and administration staff in the Northern Territory to give them the best conditions possible to work under, and a real career.
Let me remind Territorians that problems in our health system have not just emerged in the last 21 months. It was not until I tabled a letter in the parliament in regard to the appalling state of the Accident and Emergency Department in Darwin towards the end of 1999, that the government even considered putting any additional money in to a new A and E. Let me read from this letter to show – not too long ago, only three or four years ago - the state of emergency services in the Northern Territory. They are vastly improved since when the CLP was in office. The letter is from a Dr David Green, who was a specialist emergency physician working Darwin. This letter is dated 19 February 1999:
- As you are aware, I was part of the inspection team that accredited the emergency department for
specialist registrar training in 1996.
- The emergency department is extremely small and cramped considering its case load. Patient flows
are slow, decision making on admissions is made by inpatient units and patients bank up for hours.
Every day I have seen suturing, drainage of abscesses and other procedures that would take place
in open corridors. On many occasions patients with pus-filled wounds are treated on general utility beds
as there is no procedure room for this. Taking a history from a patient in an open space less that a metre
from the next bed is inappropriate where sensitive or personal details are required.
- I believe the current lack of space leads to this degrading lack of privacy and dignity on a daily basis.
- There are inadequate nursing staff to cover meal breaks and, when the beds in corridors are full, it creates
greatly increased demand on nurses and makes it difficult to complete the multiple tasks competing for
urgent attention.
- I find it quite a humbling experience seeing and admitting patients in this department.
- The current facility is the worst physical layout and dysfunctional department I have ever seen, and on behalf
of the college I have inspected over 40 departments and visited many others.
We are a government that takes health and the health of Territorians very seriously. We have a Health minister who is confronting a legacy of the worst health outcomes in Australia, faced by the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory taxpayer, with a budget situation where we have a debt four to five times greater than the other states of Australia.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member cannot imply that we are lying.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. This is a censure debate.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, they do not like it. Unlike the member for Greatorex, I can produce the evidence to this parliament about the state of the health budget not that long ago under the CLP, and the state of medical care and medical services that Territorians were receiving. We are a government that will deal with those issues openly and honestly with Territorians, unlike the previous government that misled Territorians time and time and time again. Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be put.
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 Mr Mills
Ms Scrymgour Mr Reed
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the censure motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
TABLED PAPER
Development Application - NT Portion 3951, Petrick Road, Alice Springs
Development Application - NT Portion 3951, Petrick Road, Alice Springs
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, on 4 December 2002, I directed the Northern Territory Development Consent Authority to not approve any subdivision proposal for NT portion 3951, Petrick Road, Alice Springs, which would create an allotment less than two hectares in area. Due to an administrative oversight, this matter was not tabled within the time frame required by section 85 of the Planning Act. Whilst I am advised the validity of my direction to the authority is not affected by its late tabling, out of an abundance of caution, I decided to reissue the direction.
On 10 March 2003, I confirmed my direction to the Development Consent Authority by reissuing the direction and hereby table of the following items: a summary of the application to which the direction relates; the terms of the direction; and the reason for the direction.
MOTION
Note paper - Development Application, NT Portion 3951, Petrick Road, Alice Springs
Note paper - Development Application, NT Portion 3951, Petrick Road, Alice Springs
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the paper and statement.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Speaking to the motion, Madam Speaker - and I would not mind a copy of that while I am speaking - as I alluded this morning, this is the minister for backflips. I said that you might come in here tonight and do the double somersault with the half pike, and you have just accomplished it. Although it might be that you have not done a very good job of it. I highlighted in the February sittings that the minister, by way of a question, may have been outside of his powers by the late tabling of a direction to the planning authority. It seems it now turns out I was right, because that is exactly what the minister has done tonight. He has come in here and said: ‘Oh, by the way, I think my direction was invalid’.
So, for that period up until tonight, from the date that you directed, which goes back quite a long time, one would have to consider that the invalid direction might leave an opening for the owners of this particular development. I understand there might be some legal proceedings going on, and this might leave a loophole for them to take you right through the court. I see the minister is nodding; that he knows there are some legal proceedings going on against the minister for the way this direction was applied. It is an appalling, sloppy mess. I put to you, minister, that the first direction that you issued - now that we have two - was probably done out of your office because, when you look at it, it is totally sloppy.
You have just issued this new summary of development application and the background, and you go through the terms of the direction, similar to the one you have done previously, in the first one, you say, pursuant to section 77 of the Planning Act you have directed the authority, and so on. So, the excuse you are using is that the time was one issue and that your direction was probably invalid, although it seems the courts are going to decide that now. In your first direction, section 77 has nothing to do with your powers to direct. Under the act, and you will know this minister, it has everything to do with the powers to enter land. So, that was another sloppy mistake, minister. You might be explaining one day, either in here or somewhere else, that perhaps you did this out of your office. Now, you have to ask: why did he do it out of his office? When he actually tabled, in February, the first of the directions the minister said:
- Madam Speaker, I table the direction pursuant to section 85 …
And he got it right in the speech but wrong in the actual document:
- … of the Planning Act in relation to the non-approval of any subdivision for portion 3951 to further
include Alice Springs.
It goes on to say:
- On 4 December 2002, I directed the Northern Territory Development Consent Authority to not approve
any subdivision for NT portion 3951, Petrick Road, Alice Springs, which would create an allotment of
less than two hectares in the area.
He also goes on to say:
- … before I table the required information …
Similar information as I said to the one he has tabled tonight:
- … I wish to note, there is a legal doubt as to whether this needs to be tabled or not. The action I took was
not to direct a specific development application …
This is where the legal doubt comes in as to whether he has to table; given that now he has tabled twice:
- … the action I took was not to direct a specific development application but to all possible applications
which would be below two hectares lot in size. However, because this is a very grey area, I have decided
to table these anyhow.
Now, when you go to the act, the act is quite specific. If you are not particularly directing a development, then there is some doubt as to whether you have to table. However, when we look at the first direction, and now it seems on first glance of the second direction, it absolutely applies to one specific development. There is no legal grey area as to whether or not you have to table the direction. That is paramount under the act and very clear in the types of documents that have been tabled. The minister should have known in the first instance that he was outside of the time frame allowed under the act, and that he had an invalid direction.
This sloppy minister’s performance looks like it may end up in court, and what a terrible way to go. What a terrible way to run government. Now, why did he direct it? Let us go back and have a look. It seems, according to the newspaper and Hansard and media reports back in December, that the Minister for Central Australia had something to do with it because on the ABC, the Minister for Central Australia is reported as saying:
- I sat on Erwin Chlanda’s verandah the other night looking out on the block of bush that he has on his
two hectare block and it was pretty close to heaven with the sunset there …
The paper came out on 4 December. One would have to conclude that there is a time lapse for those comments – well, firstly for the Centralian minister to be enjoying himself on the back verandah of Erwin Chlanda’s, who as everybody knows is the editor and owner – I assume the owner - of the paper The Alice Springs News. If the minister had been there at some point and if this has to be printed so that it could come out on the 4th, then the direction that has been given on the 4th must have been made at some time prior to that, one would assume – the decision to direct – one would …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: Let me finish. Be patient, Chief Minister, be patient. My understanding, for the Chief Minister – I am sure she has heard this story - I am told that the Minister for Central Australia – well, I assume that he has made some sort of public commitment, then gone along to the planning minister and said: ‘Listen, minister, I have made a public commitment and you have to fix it by giving a direction’, which I understand the planning minister, much to his credit, was not very happy with. In fact, he was very unhappy, and a lot of communication, either of a verbal or written nature, took place between their two offices. But. at the end of the day, we know from the history of this thing that the planning minister capitulated to the Centralian minister, probably because of his rank - who knows? At the end of the day, he issued the direction to the planning authority that had, until tonight, seemed to be, and is probably about to be legally tested - an invalid direction.
He has had to come in here and repair the whole situation by, once again, a direction that is particularly relevant to the portion of the issue in the first place: NT Portion 3951. Minister, I am not sure how you are going to get out of this one, but if that is how you are going to abuse your ministerial powers, what hope do we have? I hope, in the review of the Planning Act, that you can perhaps fix up those anomalies, make it clear – we understand the act – but maybe make it clearer for yourself.
A member interjecting.
Dr Burns: You won’t pick up on that one.
Mr BALDWIN: Yes, I will, actually. The member for Johnston talks about Rapid Creek. I am still waiting to hear about Rapid Creek. What is different that you have done? Maybe he can get up here in adjournment, and I will take great interest in listening. What he has instigated now is an acquisition of something like the equivalent of 32 house blocks of land from private owners – a terrible, terrible way to go, minister. But, you will live with that because the owners are not happy with you, minister, and you will live with it in your electorate. The owners will ensure that you do.
Minister, you have a lot of explaining to do.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BALDWIN: I can hear an interjection, Madam Speaker, can you?
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, order!
Mr BALDWIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Do not creep in here, Minister for Lands and Planning, late at night, and try to get out of this by issuing another direction that is as bad as the first direction. I await with great interest the outcomes of the legal proceedings that you have told me, by your indication of nodding tonight, that are under way against you and your actions. You should be damned for the way you have handled the situation.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, may I raise a point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: You may raise a point of order.
Ms MARTIN: I question the use of the language by the member for Daly: ‘That you will be damned’. That is highly unparliamentary, and it should be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I will not rule a point of order on that. Member for Nelson, you have the floor.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have an interest in this as well. Tonight it has been said, as some people said yesterday, my question was a tinny question. I have always taken an interest in planning matters and I can do so independently. What concerned me originally about this particular application was that when it was raised it was possibly going to be tabled late in parliament. On the night it was raised, which I think was 18 February this year, the minister basically tabled it, said a few words and went home and that was the end; there was no debate. I always believed at that stage we should have been able to debate it, and it has taken this time now to bring this debate on.
What always concerned me about this particular application - and I should say at the outset, I am pleased at least that the minister has come back to rectify it - was what I was trying to raise in the question the other day, that the minister said in answer to my question:
- Yes, I directed the authority in Alice Springs not to approve a subdivision less than two hectares, not a
specific subdivision, but any subdivision in this area, for the simple reason there was overwhelming
support for my decision.
He also said, in his reasons for not approving the subdivision, and I will make it a bit clearer than when I was giving the question:
- The subdivision of land less than two hectares within the RL2, rural living two dispersed settlements zone,
to the extent proposed and in this area …
- … is considered a significant departure from the direction provided by the NT Planning Scheme.
You also said that the proposal as exhibited raised strong concerns by landowners within the surrounding
area.
- My department advised me that there is a legal doubt as to whether the notice …
That is, the direction …
- … needs to be tabled in parliament because I have not directed or initiated to ban a specific development.
Also on the same day when you did table the documents, you said:
- The action I took was not a specific development application, but to all possible applications which would
be below two hectare lots in size.
I believe that your original reasons clearly show that this was a specific direction. This is what I raised in my question yesterday and I do not think, minister, you understood perhaps what I was trying to get at.
I raised the issue that in the Litchfield Area Plan, the DCA - and I rang to check - still allows land to be waived below the two hectare minimum size. The reason I ask that is because you said in your direction, or your reasoning for not approving this subdivision, was that this was considered a significant departure from the direction provided by the NT Planning Scheme, not the Alice Springs Town Plan. So, you had made a direction based on, I believe, all the two hectare subdivisions in the Northern Territory. Yesterday, you said to me in response to that:
- As for Litchfield Shire …
This is the only reaction to that:
- … if people are against this kind of subdivision and they make noise and they give me good arguments,
I am prepared to do the same in Litchfield.
That was not what the debate was about. The debate was saying that, if what you said was true that this was not about a specific development, then your ruling that there will be no land allowed to have a waiver below two hectares in that particular RL2 zone, should have applied to Litchfield Shire and any other part of the Territory where this should have applied. It has not. I find it difficult to believe that your reasons do make any sense. I feel that you could have fixed this issue. That was one of the reasons I was hoping we could have debated it, so you could have fixed this issue by bringing out the statements that you have tonight, much earlier. As it is, it has now come out much later. The shadow minister for planning has said there are now court matters pertaining to this issue.
The one area I do not know - and maybe you can help me there, minister – is that by bringing out this statement you can actually change what has already happened. Does the act allow you, after making one decision, to make another decision? That is what concerns me in this: has this gone too far?
Basically, why I am here is to explain where I was coming from. I do not accept the minister’s statement that the reasons to reject this subdivision did not relate to a specific subdivision. I believe they did, and that can be seen in the minister’s responses. I would be certainly interested to hear what the minister has to say. I hope this issue can be cleared up. The last thing you want is for developers to be tied up in courts. I also think residents who own two hectare lots in Alice Springs, as in other places, would be very interested to see the outcome of whatever is going to happen.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I would like to just clarify some aspects of this issue. I am certainly not going to intrude on the debate about the actual details of the Planning Act or, indeed, the process that may be tested in court. What I would like to talk about, is upfront say that I congratulate the minister on the intervention that he took in this matter. The reason I congratulate the minister is that the Planning Act ultimately has to serve the whole needs of our communities.
I was certainly out on that veranda at Erwin Chlanda’s house previous to that article being written. The reason I was out there was that I got in the car when I became aware of the controversy about the decision that was to be made. I wanted to talk to the residents around that area and gauge for myself what they saw in this issue. I was certainly aware, as all members in Alice Springs were aware, that this has been a very long-standing controversy. It has been a point of defence of the general feeling, the spirit, the intent of the subdivisions that were put out in that the block areas around the Hornsby development. In the time I was out there, I was certainly left in no doubt, both during the visit and in subsequent communications that were sent to me by residents in that part of Alice Springs, that there was very broad resistance to having further subdivision of the Hornsby area.
I would like to also pay tribute to the member for Macdonnell who was acting as a good local member; he did very similar things to me. He went back to the people who were most affected by the decision and asked them how they felt about it and then conveyed that information, as I did, to the minister for planning, so that the minister for planning was clear on what the most important stakeholders of the planning decision felt about the options that he was having to choose between. That is, ultimately, what we are there to do as members of parliament, and I said that at the time in public, and the member for Macdonnell also quite rightly expressed the attitudes, the opinions of the vast majority of people around that piece of land as to what they felt about further the subdivision. We have to represent our communities. That is what we were voted in to do. In my actions and in the actions of the member for Macdonnell, we made sure that democracy was alive and well in the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge with great interest that the member for Macdonnnell is absent from the House. I am sorry if I reflect on the person, but obviously …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The member cannot reflect on the presence or otherwise of a member in the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: That is true.
Mr VATSKALIS: I withdraw, Madam Speaker, but I noted with great interest the help I have received from the member for Macdonnell on that particular issue, and I am pretty sure he will stand up and support me soon or in the near future.
It was a very interesting debate. I start with the member for Nelson who is of the opinion that the direction was on a specific subdivision. At the same time, he turns around and says: ‘Yes, but it applies to the Northern Territory planning scheme’. So, is it specific to apply to a particular subdivision, or is it a generic one that applies to the whole of the Northern Territory? It cannot be both. It has to be one or the other.
The application for a specific subdivision was for a lot of 5.4 hectares, the lot portion 3951, to be subdivided into four lots. That was the specific of the subdivision. Nowhere in my direction to the DCA – and I tabled yesterday a letter – does it state: ‘Do not approve the four lot subdivision of NT Portion 3951’. What it says is:
- The subdivision of land less than two hectares within the RL2 rural living zone to the extent proposed and
in the area is considered a significant departure.
What I did say, what I directed, is not to approve any subdivision less than two hectares. I did not say: ‘Do not approve the four block subdivision’. Certainly, if the applicant has any doubts or any queries, it is still a free country, he can always hire a lawyer and he can always go to court. I have no problem. My direction is the letter that I tabled yesterday in this parliament and nowhere in this letter does it say: ‘Do not approve the four lot subdivision of NT Portion 3951’. Under section 85, which the member for Daly correctly said that when I tabled the document in parliament, I referred correctly to section 85.
Mr Baldwin: No, 77.
Mr VATSKALIS: The member for Daly stated clearly, and it is written here and in the document I tabled in parliament, that according to section 85 - that is my statement. In the tabled document, there was a typographical error: 77. These documents, as the member for Daly knows, are not issued by the minister’s office. They are issued by the department. All of us are human and make mistakes. Again, as a matter of caution, because it is a significant issue and when the minister directs the authority – personally, I consider it important - we sought legal advice, and the legal advice was that the late tabling of the documents did not invalidate my direction, and also the legal data, if it is a specific or generic direction.
Again, as I said before, I have no problems directing the authority to the particular action because there was overwhelming opposition to this subdivision. Having a look at the map of the area, all the blocks are two hectare blocks, apart from five blocks that were subdivided, following application by the same applicant previously. These five blocks which are actually much less than two hectares, were approved by the CLP minister for planning, not the previous one, a long time before his time as minister.
For the ex-minister for planning to come here and argue for a point of law, is a big job. This was the minister who could not make any decisions himself; he had to take them to Cabinet for approval. He was the minister who actually stuffed up Rapid Creek, and now he complains about it. He was the minister who chose to take a holiday while Hotel Darwin was demolished in the middle of the night because he did not have the guts to list a direction for the preservation of Hotel Darwin. At least this minister has the guts to direct the DCA, and as I said, it is still a free country. I suppose they can …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are not sticking to the debate; the debate was about NT portion 3951. Last time I was down there I did not see a Hotel Darwin.
Mr VATSKALIS: That is the problem.
Mr WOOD: I thought they might have moved it there.
Madam SPEAKER: The member is right in drawing the minister’s attention to make his statements relevant.
Mr VATSKALIS: I have no problem directing the DCA and I will do it again if I realise the overworked opposition will support a particular project. I am prepared to do it and, as I said before, it is a free country. People are entitled to hire a lawyer and I am pretty sure the member for Araluen will recommend some good lawyers and the person can take it to court.
A member interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: We will be around and we will see about it. But, once again, the direction for the particular portion, it was not my direction to stop subdivision of four lots. It was a direction not to approve any subdivision less than two hectares.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Minister has the floor.
Ms MARTIN: Looking at the dynamic and electric opposition, it would be a charitable exercise to see this House close at least before midnight, so I am pleased to be in adjournment debate. I am sure there are many members here who want to contribute to this very important part of the parliamentary day.
I want to share with you and other members of parliament a wonderful experience I had recently. Just before lunchtime on Monday 14 April, I had the pleasure of meeting the current batch of volunteers at the Museum and Art Gallery in Darwin. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this program, for nearly three years now, the Museum and Art Gallery has been running a volunteer program. The education volunteer program is designed to expand the educational programs provided by the museum to reach as wide an audience as possible. Education volunteers work directly with the education manager and education officer in the Discovery Centre. The volunteers perform a range of services, including conducted guide walks and floor talks to education groups, tour groups and general visitors. The museum conducts a training program over four months for all new education volunteers, and the program provides a basic understanding and knowledge of the MAGNT personnel, collection galleries and heritage properties.
Volunteers are also taught how to prepare and conduct a tour, and a formal assessment is undertaken at the end of the training period. At the end of the period, the education volunteers are asked to give their services for at least one day per fortnight, and attend regular education volunteers meetings at least once a month. There are 14 regulars in this years intake. I was not able to meet all of them but they include: Aurora Baldo, Elaine Charlton, Barbara Cox, Raz De Jongh, Jack Edmonds, Shirley Hooper, Norma Jensen, Pamela Merrington-Norman, Bill Myer, Olwyn Noble, Hazel Pailthorpe, Jemima Proops, Tobias Richardson, Reean Sneddon, Ninik Stroud, Inge Van Sprang, and Iris Wolifson. Together with graduates of previous years, there is a very talented pool of people who assist the museum by supporting school visits, cruise ship visits and any other specialists programs offered to enhance the visitor’s experience.
Some of the regulars were away on the day of my visit. I was not able to catch Ken McAloon this visit, as he is currently travelling around Australia. Ken is well known for his talk in the Cyclone Tracy exhibition using his own experiences working at the Met Bureau. Jenny and John Bloomfield, who are staunch supporters of the program, are currently in Italy on a three-month around the world trip. Wendy James, Sue Gibbs and Joy Eva were also away.
The education volunteers bring so much to the Museum and Art Gallery program, and are very generous with their support. They come from many walks of lives with many full life experiences that they generously share with our visitors. There are ex-government servants, teachers, business people, authors, artists and amateur historians.
To the talented, generous and diverse individuals who make up the volunteer program at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, my heartiest thanks. For their ability and creativity, I salute them. These people are giving, in the most tangible way, directly to the benefit of our community to assist in the preservation, presentation and interpretation of our fabulous heritage. We, as a community, are greatly in their debt.
I pay tribute to someone most in this House would know who died on 31 March: Barbara James. It is just a month ago that I said goodbye to a friend, a colleague and a woman I have known and loved for many years.
Barbara James, historian and journalist, was arguably at the heart of the historic victory that saw Labor take power after 27 years of CLP government in the Territory. It was she who first persuaded me to enter politics. It was Barbara, also, who changed the way we viewed Northern Territory history through her groundbreaking historical accounts of women in the Northern Territory in her terrific book No Man’s Land.
Born in Holdrege, Nebraska, Barbara travelled to the Top End in 1967 after a year in Australia, with a broken-down motor car. She became a Territorian by choice. She was later to say, ‘Darwin seduced me immediately’, as she started working at the Northern Territory News under legendary Editor, Jim Bowditch. Veteran Darwin newsman John Louizou worked alongside Barbara at the time and says of her:
- As the only reporter with a journalism degree to ever work on the NT News, and as a foreigner, she
brought more thoughtful writing to the paper.
After four years with the NT News, Barbara took up freelance work at the ABC, drawing the shift that led up to Cyclone Tracy. After putting the 7 pm news to bed, she went home to her family to welcome Christmas as she remembered. With the weather deteriorating, she went back to work, by which stage emergency telexes were coming in every 15 minutes. While filing to Sydney communication died. The late Mike Hayes, who was the journalist in charge at the time, said to her:
- For crying out loud, go home, look after yourself, and don’t worry about the ABC.
She returned to suburban Nightcliff to a house that was progressively disintegrating. After her house blew away, she sheltered for hours with her then husband and mother-in-law, next to a low cyclone-wire fence; their only protection was a blanket.
After Tracy, Barbara worked as a publicity officer with the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, freelancing for the ABC, working for the community organisations such as the Environment Centre, the executive of the ACF, and writing news and historical features for the Darwin Star. ‘The Star …, said Barbara, ‘… put me in contact with people who had vivid stories of Territory Life, and Territory identities’. This contact was to lead, via eight years of research across private and public records throughout Australia, to the 1989 publication of No Man’s Land. It was the first time that the stories and voices of Northern Territory women had been heard. She had an abiding commitment to the value of oral history. In a circle that is yet to be completed - in fact, I was due to launch the updated version of the book in a couple of months time, where the new politic of the Northern Territory will also be documented.
Four years of that period was also spent as press secretary, political advisor, confidante and friend - especially friend - to Bob Collins, the NT Labor leader. Bob first met Barbara in 1967, when she wrote a yarn about his having driven a 1926 Baby Austin 7 from New South Wales to Darwin. As Bob says, ‘She referred to me throughout as Bobby - thank God the name did not stick’. They became firm mates. ‘My favourite place …’, remembered Bob Collins, ‘… was her verandah’. She ran his first successful 1977 campaign for the NT parliament and worked in his Darwin office from 1990 to 1998, when Bob was a Senator in government, and opposition.
Barbara became a life member of the Australian Labor Party, NT Branch, in recognition of the fact that she, as Bob Collins so eloquently said, ‘… worked her backside off for the party’. It was only in recent months that she relinquished the presidency of the local party branch, which is also my branch, the Dick Ward Branch.
Collins regards her historical and other work with bodies such as a commissioner with the Australian Heritage Commission between 1989 and 1992 as superb. It included work with the NT National Trust Council, and generating scores of academic publications on Northern Territory history. Collins recalled:
- Her work was relentless over the years; her life was replete with accomplishment ... she was a true
Territorian, devoted to the Territory, devoted to Darwin ... she was funny, incredibly compassionate …
I have never heard a single person, in 30 years, say a bad word about Barbara.
Despite the cancer that was ravaging her, Barbara was working in my office to within days of her final short illness. She was still talking new ideas, new projects - including the commemoration of 25 years of NT self-government this July. She was still her humorous self, with a sense of mischief and fun.
Despite Cyclone Tracy, despite setbacks and years in the political wilderness, the accidental Territorian stuck it through, enriching the Territory’s understanding about itself. In a 1989 interview, she described it thus:
- The Territory is a demanding taskmaster. It requires a commitment, a willingness to persevere. The rewards
are there in the climate, the lifestyle, the informality, the people but, at some stage, you have to choose to remain.
That Barbara James did for so many years, and made such an awesome contribution.
There are many of us who will miss her always. I am sure, on behalf of everyone in this parliament, I can bid Barbara James farewell.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to use my time to cover a couple of issues, the first being the Top End Boys. This is a locally produced television program commencing 7 May. It aims to tell the nation exactly what the Territory has to offer. It is the brainchild of Chris Deutrom, Evan Papadanakis, Simon Manzie, Ian Jumbuck Redfern and Stefan Wood. The outfit has just wrapped up a 10-part series for 7 Darwin which premieres at 8.30 pm on 9 May. Chris and Evan, both 33, host the program. Simon, 32, is the show’s producer and cameraman. Ian, 40, acts as the sound recordist. Stefan, of Northern Air Charter, is the show’s resident pilot.
These young lads have shown great confidence in the Northern Territory. They have seen what we have here and, for anyone who has travelled out of the Territory or even overseas, we sometimes are reminded of just how special this place is. These young lads have identified that and have used their own initiative, with the support of local businesses, to fund a television series of 10 programs to be aired on Channel 7. It is their own initiative, and they are to be applauded for that.
Unfortunately, I am led to understand that they made five approaches to the Northern Territory government for some assistance in finishing off their program, which will market the Northern Territory to, potentially, the entire nation, with the support of local businesses who can see their vision, understand it, and want to support it. Five separate approaches were made to the Northern Territory government and, on some of these occasions, although a clear understanding was given that they were to meet with a minister, they were not able to do so. Just the courtesy of having their vision heard, understood and responded to by a Territory minister would have been sufficient. However, they desperately needed support and, in the end, they had to then go and find support from those who do believe in the Territory. It is not, apparently, the Northern Territory government.
I wish them all the best and I believe their show is going to go from strength to strength, and they will be rewarded for their vision. I certainly look forward to seeing the support that they will eventually get when it comes to fruition - that they are actually backing a winner - which the Northern Territory government did not at this point. I would imagine that they will rush in next time they have an opportunity to back a clear winner. They missed the horse on this one.
I now turn my attention to a constituent of mine who is no longer with us. John Leslie Mill was born in Amphitheatre in Victoria, on 3 April 1927. Amphitheatre is in central Victoria. Sadly, he passed away just after Christmas, on 27 December 2002. He attended primary school in Amphitheatre, and went on to Mont Albert Central School and won a full scholarship to Melbourne Grammar. He excelled in sport, athletics and Aussie Rules. He enjoyed great academic success and won a Hemmingway and Robertson scholarship to university in 1943. He was a talented academic student and a recognised and successful athlete.
However, in 1943, the nation was at war and he chose to serve in the forces and allowed his scholarship to expire. He entered the Royal Australian Navy at Flinders Naval College. While he was studying at Flinders Naval College, he was signed on by the Carlton Football Club, his talent was ultimately recognised, and he was invited to train for the A-grade team. However, war called and, unfortunately, he was not able to satisfy this sporting recognition and was not able to play A-grade for Carlton. I made arrangements, knowing that Carlton were to come up here, for him to be able to run on to Marrara when that wonderful match with the Aboriginal All Stars was played. However, sadly, he passed away before that match. I asked him whether he would be interested in doing so and he was very thrilled. Sadly, he could not do it.
He joined HMAS Sydney and returned to Australia in 1948. He continued with sports and in the navy. He had two tours of duty in Korea, and suffered a back injury which later required surgery, and put him back with HMAS Melbourne in the UK at one stage. While he was there, he was playing tennis and enjoyed some mixed doubles with a young English lady by the name of Betty Adams. They married in October 1955. They had three sons: Andrew, Gordon and Campbell.
In 1961, he resigned from the Royal Australian Navy. The scholarship that he had let expire in 1943 - the indication of his academic abilities and interests - was resumed when he studied at MIT. He achieved an Associate Diploma of Management in 1967, then a BA at La Trobe in 1976 and a B Ed in 1978. He finished his working career as a deputy director of TAFE at Preston College.
Betty, his wife, taught at Balwyn High School from 1964 to 1989. She played cricket, tennis, table tennis and badminton. Both were involved in sports administration of junior sport, YMCA, swimming clubs, hockey, football and Rugby. They both discovered bridge due to their elder son choosing it as his career, and they played competitively around Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.
In 1990 to 1995, in retirement, they toured Australia in a caravan. They lived in national parks and local caravan parks. They played golf and bridge and met the locals. They discovered the Northern Territory in 1991, and spent some time each year in the Northern Territory. They decided the Territory was the place for retirement so they bought some land at Dundee Beach. Sadly, Les’s health began to deteriorate, so they moved to Palmerston in 1999.
They still played bridge, in which Les and Betty represented the Northern Territory in Adelaide in 1998 and Perth in 1999. Betty continued with here bridge, representing the Northern Territory in Brisbane in 2000, ACT in 2001 and Hobart in 2002.
Les was diagnosed with renal failure and attended Nightcliff clinic for three years, three days a week. The staff provided wonderful treatment, especially Drs Schnelling and Lawson. Sadly, an infection-causing toxic shock resulted in Les leaving us on 12 December 2002.
Les and Betty formed the Palmerston Bridge Club together and Betty, to this day, continues to teach at regular meetings each Thursday. Betty is the youth coordinator for the Northern Territory Bridge Association and teaches in schools and coaches young players.
I now turn to two community groups which are making a difference in their community through positive leadership and volunteer service. The first is the Palmerston Maharlika Association, a committee with President, Nannette Thiel; Vice President, Patricia Wright; Vice President and Rural Chairman of Culture, Lunchi Santr; and Treasurer, Celia Brian. They have decided that it is important to keep culture alive and to play their part in maintaining an active involvement of young people in the development of culture and positive lifestyle. They have worked very, very hard to raise funds to support a dance group, where the older ones in the Filipino community are teaching the young ones techniques of different dances. They have invested in some quite elaborate costumes. They are conducting workshops, and I can tell from meeting some of the young people who are involved in this, that they are finding in quite heavy going. However, they are enjoying the hard work and achievement, and the support they are getting from the older members of the community.
They have a desire to involve young people at all levels - to give young people worthwhile and wholesome activities; to pass on traditions and culture; to create opportunities for the culture of the young to be expressed through creative activity; and to encourage the development of skills such as leadership, artistic creativity, personal and professional, and attributes such as self-esteem, cooperation and trust.
The Palmerston Filipino Maharlika Association deserve the full support of businesses in Palmerston, and those with an interest in developing culture, a good future, and strong leadership in our youth.
Finally, to a function I attended on 12 April, the Theravada Buddhist Association. They held their first function, which was extremely well attended and very generously supported by the Thai community. That was the launch of their steering committee so that they ultimately could be incorporated as the Thai Theravada Association.
They had their first meeting in February 2003 and their steering committee was formed. This committee is now steering them to the place where their funds will be of sufficient magnitude to allow them to invest in land that they will be able to develop. I congratulate the steering committee, and I wish them all the best.
Jiraphorn Crowell is the Chairperson; Samsong Albert is the Vice-Chairperson; Tony Schumacher is the Secretary representing the Thai Friendship Association; Graham Everingham the Treasurer; Jaroon Rattarom is a committee member along with Bencha Yuhun, Poj, Panee Hill and Saeng Yodkhemarkul. I will provide these names to Hansard to assist them.
I, along with other members of this Chamber who attended that function, wish them all the best. There is nothing more heartening to see community groups being proactive, enthusiastic and confident about their future, and taking full responsibility for their own progress; at the same time, then being qualified to reach out and to receive the support of those in government. I commend the aspirations of the Thai Theravada Association and the Palmerston Maharlika Association. Any application they choose to make to the Northern Territory government, I commend and support.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, a meeting was held in Nhulunbuy recently to explore possible solutions to the problem of antisocial behaviour in the region. I took the opportunity to attend the meeting. I commend Alcan in Gove and the Nhulunbuy Corporation for the initiative which produced 61 suggestions to reduce antisocial behaviour focussing on the areas of alcohol, drug and kava abuse, gambling, education, health and other contributing factors. The meeting was chaired by Town Administrator, Mike Hindle, and attended by representatives from Alcan, Nhulunbuy Corporation, police, Northern Territory Crime Authority, ATSIC, Miwatj Council, Licensing Commission, other government departments, and Aboriginal organisations.
Austin Asche, from the customary law inquiry, also addressed the meeting. A major point made was that recognition should be given to those indigenous people who do not drink and do not participate in antisocial behaviour. It is evident that the relationship between Napaki and Yolngu needs to be strengthened so that we can work together to reduce antisocial behaviour. The establishment of a steering committee to implement solutions is the first positive step towards reducing the problem.
The steering committee will be chaired by Eden Gray-Spence, representative of the Chief Minister in Nhulunbuy. Other members comprise representatives from Alcan, the Nhulunbuy Corporation, Miwatj Regional Council, major Aboriginal clans, Northern Territory health, police, ATSIC, members of the community, and Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I look forward to the reports that will be made regularly by the steering committee.
I acknowledge the achievements of local artists from the East Arnhem region who have recently featured at an exhibition at the Annandale Galleries in Sydney. Bark paintings and memorial poles from Buku-Larrnggay Mulka Centre at Yirrkala have been on display at an exhibition that was launched earlier this month. The exhibition, named Bawayak-Invisibility, is a collaboration of artists Djambawa Marawili, Wanyubi Marika and Galuma Maymuru who, together with their spouses, created pieces using a white-on-white theme that indicate modern changes in Yolngu painting.
Many of the works in the exhibition have been pre-sold to major institutions and private collections including the National and Queensland Art Galleries. The catalogue published for the exhibition contained a statement by expert, Jenny Isaacs AM, which said:
- Its masterful use … undoubtedly endorses these three Yolngu artists as among the best and most
imaginative of Australian contemporary art practitioners.
I want to recognise a couple of long-serving employees from the department on their retirement or resignation. In 1966, Mona Ruth Nixon took up a scholarship from the Commonwealth Welfare Department to train as a preschool teacher. Ruth started as a teacher at the Commonwealth Department of Education and Science in 1969. She spent well remembered years at the Commonwealth Teaching Service before being compulsorily transferred to the Northern Territory Department of Education.
Ruth moved to Ida Standley Preschool and successfully employed the first Aboriginal liaison assistant to work with parents and students from the Gap and town camps. She was a moving force and also successfully gained funding to set up a mobile preschool that visited town camps.
After working as President of the Preschool Teachers’ Association, Ruth moved to Ross Park Primary School. Her commitment to the development and welfare of children is clear in all her activities. She was responsible for writing the first policy on early intervention and early entry to preschool; she was a successful trainer for early literacy in-service courses; and had a wide network in the early childhood area.
She became Assistant Principal in 1991, where a drive for development resulted in the commencement of a dance program to encourage entry to Centralian Eisteddfod. Ruth’s commitment to education, her resilience and stamina, all contribute to her continuous drive to improving outcomes for children of all ages.
Dorothy Lee’s career commenced in 1974 at Darwin Preschool. However, after Cyclone Tracy, the Lee family moved to Brisbane. Dot missed the Territory and was back with the family in 1975, where she commenced the 1976 school year at Nightcliff Preschool, remaining there for two years. She moved to Wulagi Preschool in 1978, where she was to spend the next 25 happy years.
Dot’s commitment to education can be seen in her successful teaching of two generations. Dot taught students who are now parents, and she was able to teach their children. Dot gave an enormous amount of time in developing and caring for the preschool garden, including weekend and holiday periods. Now, in her retirement, Dot’s commitment continues and she holds the important position of honorary grandmother to Wulagi Preschool children.
Nellie Mok initially trained as a secondary art teacher in Malaysia and taught in Malaysia and Brunei for 12 years. Migrating to Australia in 1972, she started teaching in the Northern Territory at Alice Springs High in 1973. Nellie taught at Darwin High from 1974 to 1988, initially in art and later in maths and computing. She upgraded her qualifications to Batchelor of Education through Darwin Community College in 1984, then Master of Education Studies through the Northern Territory University in 1992. She achieved Master Teacher status in 1989 and has been a TEP1 since then.
Nellie worked at NT Open Education Centre, previously the Northern Territory Secondary Correspondence School, from 1989 as a maths teacher and writer. She worked as Senior Education Officer Maths, under the Aboriginal Education Program in 1991. She has also been the Northern Territory Coordinator for the Australian mathematics competition, the Westpac Award, since 1996. At the Open Education Centre, she led several significant initiatives: use of the electronic classroom, setting up the first IT network, coordinating the centre’s initial multimedia programs, and editor of newsletters and magazines. For many years, she was a member of the Year 10 Mathematics Common Instrument of Assessment Panel and a committee member of the Mathematics Teachers Association of the Northern Territory.
Nellie retired from the NT Open Education Centre in February 2003. She and her husband, Harry Kaiser, will retire to the Hunter Valley to be part of the viticulture and tourist industries. All her colleagues across NT Open Education Centre and DEET wish her all the best for a wonderful retirement nearer to her outstanding grandchildren.
Zheng Sen Huang retired from the Department of Employment, Education and Training on 24 December 2002 after 23 years of meritorious service. Sen joined the department on 2 January 1980 with the Curriculum Assessment Branch. He has been with the Business, Planning and Information Division since December 2001. Sen is a qualified teacher of maths, with post-graduate qualifications and training - including Educational Testing Service, Princetown, in the United States - in measurement. Prior to his working with the Department of Education, he was a lecturer in research design and methodology and measurement for five years at the Goulbourn College of Advanced Education, New South Wales.
Some of Sen’s achievements since joining the department include: starting a multilevel assessment program, initially known as PAP in 1984; starting Year 10 and Year 11 exams in English and mathematics - developing a framework, as well as managing the examination team; starting the approval for research protocol; represented the Northern Territory in national and international assessment forums from the late 1980s and through to the 1990s, including Australian Studies and Student Performance, Australian Cooperative Assessment Program, Third International Mathematics and Science Study; and he sat on steering committees for Australian Studies in Student Performance, MCEETYA Benchmark Equating Steering Committee (BESC), and program for the National Student Assessment.
Sen is recognised for his dedication, commitment, motivation in the delivery and management of the programs in which he has been involved.
Mrs Shirley Andrews retired from DEET on 28 November 2002 after 23 years service. Shirley joined the department on 29 October 1979 with the Curriculum Assessment Branch. She worked in the Statistics and Demography Unit and, recently, the Business Information Services since 1981. For the last 15 years, she has been the major contact between the unit and the schools. When she started with the Statistics and Demography Unit, data collection and analysis was done manually. The original data collection for the age/ethnic in March and the age/grade in June. The results were entered on A3 handwritten sheets. Shirley did a brief stint with the Health Department for six months in 1982 and on returning to Statistics and Demography Unit, data was then recorded electronically.
In her time, with Statistics and Demography/ Business Information Services, Shirley has been the person responsible for the enrolment and attendance, age/grade census data collection. She also single-handedly collected a number of other collections such as ESL, school nurse and catchment data. She is well known, and respected by staff from all schools for her punctuality, diligence, patience with clients, reliability, conscientiousness about her work, and that she was a great team player. She is recognised, as well, for the dedication, accuracy and commitment to the collection and reporting of all that important data for the department.
Vivienne Jennings, known to her colleagues as Viv, commenced with the Commonwealth Teaching Service in 1974 as a teacher at Alawa, where she was a dedicated and successful teacher. In 1993, she went as an exchange teacher to Canada. Following the exchange, she returned to a position of Assistant Principal, Moulden Park Primary School, and, in 1994, transferred to the position of Assistant Principal, Leanyer Primary, continuing this role until her appointment as contract principal at Wanguri in January 1999.
Viv was keen to ensure all children received a holistic education. She was concerned with the development of children in personality terms and believed education was for the whole of life. Empathetic and sensitive to the needs of all children, she excelled in the use of conflict resolution processes when dealing with difficult situations. She strove to establish strong links with parents to make sure the relationship between home and school was positive.
A hard-working and committed educator, Viv completed and finished all tasks undertaken. Keeping abreast of all curriculum trends and developments, she was a leading educator always at the cutting edge of educational enterprise. As a member of the northern suburbs cluster, Viv contributed a huge amount of time, energy and effort, taking on responsibility, firstly, for curriculum and then for indigenous education. Strongly committed to this portfolio, Viv was an outstanding representative for the cluster in curriculum forums.
She was also a strong supporter of the North Australian Eisteddfod, supporting students from Leanyer, and later from Wanguri, as they shared their artistic talent and culture skills with audience. She was always to the fore in seeking to develop the confidence of children and was a great appreciator of the arts. Under her leadership, Wanguri school was to the fore in participation of Keep Australia Beautiful. The school’s efforts in the environmental domain led to its recognition as one of the most environmentally conscious in the Northern Territory.
Viv was both an educator and student, mentor and a learner: a knowledgeable, committed and dedicated Territory education leader. During her time with the department, Viv made a number of valuable contributions to education in the Northern Territory. The department wishes her well in her retirement, which commenced in January 2003.
On behalf of the government and the department, I say thank you to all of those long-serving employees for all of their years of service. I wish them long, happy and productive retirements.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I want to discuss a few issues, and I hope that I have sufficient time to get them all in. I am glad that the Minister for Community Development is listening because it falls into his portfolio areas. The first issue that I wish to raise tonight relates to a very important …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, can you just project into the microphone slightly?
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, okay. … relates to a very important and, I thought, very noble admission from the Minister for Community Development. Some time ago - not in this Chamber, but in the Chamber in Darwin - the minister walked into the Chamber and said that the government made an error with sacred sites and, as a consequence of that error, sacred sites have been declared over peoples blocks here in Alice Springs and that has caused some problem and confusion.
To his credit, the minister placed one hand on his heart, the other in the air and said: ‘I accept responsibility for this particular error’. I thought you cannot be too critical of a man who comes in and says: ‘This falls on my shoulders personally’. So, I thought: ‘Okay, we will let that run and we will see what comes out the other end’.
As a general rule, those issues seem to have been largely dealt with successfully. Indeed, I attended a briefing with the Sacred Sites Authority in relation to the matter. I walked away from that briefing somewhat satisfied that a successful outcome had been pursued.
However, specifically there is one block which seems to be becoming the focus of this particular issue, and that is the block which is in the possession of a lady by the name of Maryann Geraghty and her husband. Indeed, as the minister is doubtlessly aware, Ms Geraghty was the subject of a letter that I wrote to the minister in relation to what I considered to be a proper way to deal with Ms Geraghty’s problems.
The substance of the letter that I sent is that Ms Geraghty is a hairdresser and her husband drives for one of the local courier firms. They are normal, average, Mr and Mrs everyday citizens. I was concerned that, if the minister entered into a process of negotiations with this particular couple, one day they may be accused of having the mass of government being used as some sort of onerous weight being brought to bear on Ms Geraghty and her husband so that they would knuckle under and take a less-than-what-they-deserve result.
I received a letter from the minister that did not really commit to anything, suffice to say. To paraphrase the letter: ‘Look, leave it with us. It is all going to be Mickey Mouse and we will look after their legal fees as well’. The essence of my letter was: for God’s sake, get them a lawyer and allow them to negotiate through a lawyer.
I had cause to speak to Ms Geraghty earlier today. I want honourable members to remember that an average price for an unimproved block of land in this town - that is, a block without a house on it - is $102 875. That is for a myriad of reasons, but that is the average price. There a blocks which are in the golf course estate area which are heading up towards $200 000, and I believe there are a couple of blocks which may be even slightly over.
The area affected by this sacred sites problem was, indeed, an area which is a good part of town. That would represent probably an above average block. I spoke to Ms Geraghty earlier today, and she advised me that the government has offered her $40 000 for this block. My response to the minister is: you have got to be kidding!
Mr Ah Kit: I will have a look at it, but what did she pay for it?
Mr ELFERINK: It does not matter what she paid for it; it matters what it is worth! The minister himself was at pains to point out that the acquisition of property is something which has to be settled on just terms: its current value plus all the extra expenses that this couple have run into. The outrageous attempt to undervalue this block by as much as $60 000 is extraordinary. Has he provided a lawyer for Ms Geraghty? No, he has not. Ms Geraghty is still negotiating directly with members of the minister’s department. She is a hairdresser; she is not qualified to pursue these things, nor should she need to be qualified to pursue these things.
The fact is that she has been sitting on an asset, and she deserves to be fully compensated for any loss. If the government says that that package is that they will buy the block back from her, then that is good. However, for pity’s sake, bring up the money to what the block is worth. I am wondering how the minister is going to be able to go to the public of Alice and say: ‘We are quite happy to negotiate with people, we would rather not litigate’, and then say: ‘We are going to offer what you originally paid for the block’. Well, there are people in this town who paid $10 000 for their blocks at one stage, minister. Should you acquire any of those for any reason, are you seriously suggesting that $10 000 is an acceptable amount of money to offer? This is a matter of grave concern to me, and I would urge that the minister gets back on to this issue, pursues the issue properly and makes legitimate and real attempts to compensate these people for their losses. If that is an offer to buy back the block, then do it at a realistic price.
The next issue that I wish to raise is the matter of the rally this afternoon which was held outside the Convention Centre, where this Assembly is sitting. Several people spoke at that rally, including the member for Braitling, as well as the Mayor, who expressed particular opinions. I have no problem with that. There were also a large number of people, including a fellow by the name of Brendan McGrath - and I will remind honourable members who Mr Brendan McGrath is. He is the fellow whose photograph appeared in the Centralian Advocate on Friday, 4 April, whose head had been split from his right ear to the top of his crown because of a rock thrower. He had to go to Adelaide to have his head stitched up.
Beside him was standing a man who was holding a placard that said: ‘Stop advocating fear’. I have to say that I found that an utterly remarkable vision to behold. I wish I had a photograph of it because it reminds me of the way that politics is being played with the crime issue in this town.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I listen to members laugh and chortle, but the fact is, the member for Greatorex and I did show some interest in pursuing a rally of concerned citizens about crime issues. The government response on how to deal with this issue was to organise a counter rally.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Members opposite say: ‘Oh, no, no, not us’. The fact of the matter is that, when the counter rally arrived in two white station wagons, I saw Mike Bowden, an officer who is employed by the Office of the Chief Minister, go up to them and vet the placards they were going to hold up. Indeed, one of the placards he vetted and sent back was one that had written on it: ‘Piss off racist trash’. The direction from Mike Bowden to this protestor was: ‘Put that one away’. So the protestor says: ‘Oh yes’, and walks off and puts it away.
We saw other protestors arrive, all with the same placards in the very same paint on the same material. And what do I then see? A paid staffer, intermingling in the crowd, who is on duty and working. So, the taxpayer has the privilege of seeing this guy move about the crowd and then, all of a sudden, grab the microphone and start saying: ‘Oh, I feel safe’. ‘Well, who do you work for?’ ‘Well, I work for the Office of Central Australia’. He works for the government, and this was an attempt - a cheap and sullied attempt - to bully citizens of this town. That is exactly what was going on. This government has decided that it can bully the citizens of this town by organising a counter protest, because they do not even want to brook the criticism that the citizens of this town wanted to level of this government.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I spoke to several people who said they felt particularly uncomfortable by this organised charade by the Office of Central Australia. I will pick up on the interjection, ‘Which one, yours?’. Absolutely, and I will tell you why: I am a elected representative of the people of the Northern Territory. Mr Mike Bowden is an employee of your offices. I am elected, which means I have the right to organise these sorts of things, especially when I hear concerns about the levels of crime in this town.
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members! Member for Macdonnell, can you pause for a moment. Members, I know this is somewhat provocative, but please control your interjections.
Mr ELFERINK: What did we hear from the Minister for Central Australia? When he walked out, big smile on his face, past the member for Greatorex, he said: ‘Oh, you could have done better than this’.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: He thinks it is a joke! Well, I do not think it is a joke.
I listened to speaker after speaker at that meeting tell of the crimes that they were victims of, including a woman - the mother of Brendan McGrath - who pointed him out and burst into tears because of the damage that had been done to her son. She said that he was thinking about leaving town because of what happened to him, and he wanted to be a citizen of Alice Springs. Is it so wrong, I ask honourable members, to try and protect this man? Is it so wrong to concentrate on a particular case and say: ‘This is wrong, this should be stopped.’? No it is not. Yet, I find that anything that we do is interfered with, and preventative measures are taken by a government which wants to bully the people of this town into thinking that, if they decide to make a protest in the public arena, they can be bullied.
Well, they cannot be bullied, and I can tell you what is going to be happening. Back in the pubs and places like the Memo Club, AJ’s Tavern and other places, people are going to be talking about what happened to them at this protest. It was going to be a quiet arrangement between a few concerned citizens in Alice Springs who were going to express a few feelings, and yet we found an orchestrated - deliberately organised and interfered with by staffers - protest attempting to manipulate the people of Alice Springs. I find that this government has behaved reprehensibly.
Were they prepared to do it themselves? Where was the member for Stuart when he was trying to organise this counter protest? Where was his address to the crowd? I heard no address to the crowd.
Mr Kiely: He was in parliament, you remember ...
Mr ELFERINK: Actually, no, he went there. He was there, but did he address the crowd? No, he skulked around the back and hid behind his own staff. I can tell you that the government’s approach to the people of this town has been reprehensible and they have been disgraceful. The members opposite should seriously reconsider how they approach the citizens of this town before they start going down these paths.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do have to go alternate sides. Minister for Community Development. I am being fair, members, I am being fair.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT (Arnhem): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I was waiting for the third point to be raised by the member for Macdonnell, but he obviously did not get around to it. Maybe it was not important, although he may raise it tomorrow.
Let me firstly say about the situation with Maryann Geraghty and her husband: the point is taken. We are dealing with that and working our way through that. However, we are not a government that is just going to look at what that block is worth and throw money at it. You people, when you were in government, got up to that mischief. We will work our way through it; the negotiations are still happening, and we will continue to talk.
Mr Elferink: What is your starting point?
Mr AH KIT: We are talking. So, you can go back and tell Maryann - and I will get a message to her - we are talking and we will continue to talk, and I hope that we can arrive at a mutual agreement. So, we are talking.
A member interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Well, it is not embarrassing, because what you want us to do is to go quickly to the cheque book, and we do not operate like that. I want to talk our way through that. I understand her and her husband’s concerns. I have had a meeting with them and spoken with them - you have been briefed - and we will deal with that.
However, I would like to just comment on the member for Macdonnell’s information on what he just told us tonight about the rally. He said that he had three matters to discuss and he was glad I was here. I am also glad I was here to take some notes. We had a situation today where citizens, residents, voters, people who live here, people who are passionate about …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Do not tell me about this place, I was born here! You are not qualified to talk about Alice Springs. I was born here just across the river. I have relatives here, I have come back and played sport here, I visit as often as I possibly can.
Mr Elferink: That does not qualify me?
Mr AH KIT: You are entitled to talk about it, but what you are insinuating and inferring is that the Labor Party, or I, or Peter Toyne, organised a rally to counteract your rally.
Mr Elferink: No, your staffer did.
Mr AH KIT: You are wrong. The member for Greatorex is wrong in coming into this House and misleading this parliament, because I would like to know that 200 people …
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! If the minister wants to raise …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Daly, can you come to the microphone, please?
Mr BALDWIN: Absolutely. If the minister wants to insinuate - in fact, wants to actually say - that the member for Greatorex is misleading the House, he knows he has to do it by substantive motion. I ask that he withdraw that.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Daly does have a point of order, minister. Would you like to withdraw the comment?
Mr AH KIT: I withdraw, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. However, I will say that numbers, as far as what I witnessed out there, were highly inflated. I saw people on one side, I saw people intermingling and I saw people on the other side. I wondered how many of those people are card-carrying members of the Country Liberal Party I wondered! As soon as I walked out there, I wondered.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: You put an ad in the paper, you handed out pamphlets, you promoted it. You were gutless! Gutless, in not putting your name, or your party’s name to that flier that you were delivering to people. You were trying to, once again, big note yourselves, and you came unstuck. You came unstuck. You went doorknocking around the electorate; you had your members there. You doorknocked Braitling - probably unsuccessfully. You organised something a bit like the barbecue and I heard just you and your staffers turned up. I hope you had a lovely time because the weather is really lovely.
What you have to understand is that people are passionate about this place. People are passionate about Alice Springs.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, they were walking around, and I noticed …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, could you address the Chair? Members, it is becoming untidy.
Mr AH KIT: I had a look at some of the placards in …
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Greatorex is making personal reflections on the physical attributes of the minister, and I ask that he withdraws.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear the comments, but I would suggest that we curtail any unnecessary and unparliamentary remarks. I will start to pick them up. I will tune in.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am used to that type of snide remarks and in somewhat …
A member interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Oh, well, it comes back to those sort of remarks …
A member interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Well, about my weight about my so-called illness, etcetera. However, I am pretty tough. I was born in Alice Springs, grew up in the Territory and I will continue to be tough, as much as they would like to attack me.
What we saw today was people who opposed the protest out there and who wanted to come and make a stand in terms of: ‘I live here, too, and I live in a safe community’. There were some of those placards out there, and it was good.
Mr Baldwin interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: It was not organised by our office, and I take offence at that, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. There is no proof - no proof - for the member for Daly to make that statement here without substantiating the allegation. He cannot do that, although we saw a flyer going out with the phone number of the member for Greatorex.
Mr Baldwin: Good work by the local member.
Mr AH KIT: Yes, good work, but too ashamed to be identified. He just put his phone number there, thought that people would ring up. ‘Get the CLP voters there and we can have a little soap box that we can get up onto and big note ourselves’.
You got battered and bruised yesterday; you were battered and bruised today. Start learning to be a good opposition. When we were in opposition and when I sat there, I was told …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex.
Mr AH KIT: We are travelling all right as a government. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, and we can be better. However, the only way we are going to be better is when the opposition starts learning to be a good opposition. They have not as yet worked that out because they are so uncoordinated. They are all over the shop, they do not really know who is leading them and they have no strategise in place. They are not working as a team, and we can see it. We have seen for the last 21 months and, no doubt, we will continue to see that for the next 12 months.
We did not organise a counter protest. People have a right to come and to express their opinions. The day that is taken away from them, then we have lost the plot in the Northern Territory. We saw people who are passionate about Alice Springs and who said that they feel safe here. We are working on the numbers in terms of reducing the crime. We have trotted those out, we have shown those statistics to you, but you do not want to accept them. You do not want to accept them because we are getting a few runs on the board.
A member: You are in denial.
Mr AH KIT: No, I am not in denial. We see what denial is when we see your face, when you got exposed once again in front of the Alice Springs audience in regards to what happened with the health budget when you were the minister. You sat there, red-faced, and your mate, your Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was gone because he was caught up in it. The health budget had been run down for the last 10 years by the ministers who were in the CLP government over the last 10 years. It will take us a while to fix it, and the member for Nightcliff, the minister, is doing a great job.
One of the interesting things that came out today at that protest was that Brendan McGrath, whilst I feel for him, and that thing should not have happened to anyone, black, white or brindle - and I hear the member for Daly say, ‘Be careful’ - the most interesting thing I found out today was when his mother spoke …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: It was a non-indigenous kid. I have not heard one of you people – you allow your people to assume that it is an Aboriginal person; that he is indigenous. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Mr BALDWIN: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! It is quite clear in standing orders that a member cannot offer an opinion, and that is just what this member did. He cannot do that under standing orders.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, I hear debate all the time on offering opinion. I am just going to seek some advice, minister.
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: I have a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I think the member for Greatorex swore at me.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I rule out the point of order; I have sought advice.
Mr AH KIT: I have a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am acknowledging the minister for Community Development first, member for Millner. I am acknowledging the minister for Community Development’s point of order.
Mr AH KIT: My point of order is the unparliamentary language that is being used by the member for Greatorex towards my colleague, the member for Sanderson – sorry, member for Drysdale - in calling him a dick head. I believe it was the member for Greatorex.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex.
Members interjecting:
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Community Development, can you take your seat for a moment, please.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Community Development, I have asked you to take your seat for a moment, please! Member for Sanderson, stand up and withdraw that unparliamentary language.
Mr KIELY: I withdraw, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, this is out of hand. The Minister for Community Development has a short time left. Resume.
Mr AH KIT: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we have a situation where the member for Macdonnell tried to grandstand and lay the blame on members on this side of the House in regard to the protest, the rally they organised themselves this afternoon. People had an opportunity to come and show their love for this town and their concern. These people, I believe, also have concerns about how we can work together to bring the crime rates down. We are going to be working with those people. However, they have every right to be there saying that they love Alice Springs passionately, and that they do not necessarily agree that a rally is the best way to go - especially when it has been organised by the Country Liberal Party. So, it backfired, bad luck, think up something tonight, hope you have sweet dreams and maybe you can organise something better tomorrow.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise an issue about education tonight. It is a subject that is dear to my heart and something I have been thinking about for a long time. I want to ask the Education minister to, in fact, do a review. I know you are going to say, ‘Another review!’, but I want him to look at the intake policy for children commencing Transition in our primary schools.
I am not quite sure how familiar you are with this Transition policy, but it is now 23 years old. When I first came to the Territory in 1962 I taught Year 1. At that stage, the Department of Education in South Australia was in charge of education in the Territory. Children were eligible to enter primary school if they had turned five, but they went into Year 1. There was no Transition, prep, or kindy at that stage. Unfortunately, it was a very difficult time for young children to come straight into Year 1, particularly as many of our children did not have the background that would prepare them for formal learning. The curriculum of the Year 1 system, at that stage, expected children to learn to read in the first year of schooling, learn to write, to do their arithmetic, and learn to spell. It was a pretty tough year and many of the children in the Territory just did not cope.
With self-government, the Northern Territory had their own Department of Education and, in 1979, they looked at the policy of intake into our schools. I was part of that consultation process at the time, and I am very pleased to say that we introduced an additional period of time before Year 1 into Northern Territory schools. We, in fact, introduced continuous intake into Transition. It was based on the theory that young children should not come to school until they are ready to do so; they should not start their Year 1 formal learning until they are ready to do so. I need to say it was the purest of educational theories that you could find. However, it was something that had also been introduced into South Australia at the time, as many of our principals and teachers had come from South Australia. Certainly, I had come from Victoria where there was a prep grade before Year 1.
In Victoria, the system worked that any child who had turned five up until 30 April of that year was eligible to go into primary school at the beginning of the year. They had a once-a-year intake and it had worked. Their children had, in fact, an additional year of schooling in primary school that Territory students did not have. So, I was very pleased to be part of that group that introduced this particular transition period into our schools.
In the early 1980s also, schools in the Territory were given devolution. I was Principal of Sadadeen Primary School at the time, and that was the first school in the southern region to take on devolution and all those functions that were devolved to them. The Transition intake had meant that children were coming into school at various times right throughout the year in trickles from preschools. Problems started to emerge with this continuous intake, and schools had to adjust their policies at that stage because, obviously, it was becoming quite difficult for schools to cope. So, over a period of time, schools adjusted so that children were entered into Transition at the beginning of term 1, term 2, term 3 and term 4.
In Alice Springs - and I speak mainly of Alice Springs because I have done most of my research and discussion with them - as time has gone by also, schools have adopted the policy even further. You will find that most public schools in Alice Springs now take an intake of five-year-olds at the beginning of term 1, term 2, and term 3. They have abandoned the intake at the beginning of the fourth term. That was obviously for the simple reason they felt that many children coming in that fourth term were disadvantaged by the very short term they had in Transition. It was really not in keeping with the original policy of children being prepared for formal learning in Transition.
However, interestingly enough - and I think it would be the same in Darwin - the private schools in Alice Springs have adopted a different model. They have a once-a-year intake at the beginning of the school year for those children who have turned five by the end of April, and it is similar to the Victorian system.
It is acknowledged that intakes at various times throughout the year create problems. Each time a new intake enters a class, the equilibrium, the working atmosphere that has been established in that class, is affected. Those good established habits of the current students in that class are often interrupted by a new group of children demanding a teacher’s attention, and it has the most unsettling effect upon the class. The more intakes the teacher has into her class, obviously, the more difficult it is for them. Fewer intakes mean less time wasted in settling new children into a class. The last intake into Transition is often disadvantaged because of the limited time they have to gain the skills for Year 1.
We have also been concerned about the amount of teacher burnout that has occurred from teachers in Transition. It is quite demanding to have little five-year-olds come in at different times. You settle the first group down, get them into working mode, establish your curriculum, your work program and then, suddenly, there is another group of children coming into your classroom. When you have done all that again, there is another group of children come into your classroom. It is very, very demanding on teachers. I have to acknowledge that the teachers of Transition do a fantastic job; they have such a caring attitude for their young children. I suppose the whole thing is that they provide this program of readiness for children which is also quite demanding, in the fact that you have so many children moving at different rates through their learning. They have to cater for all those individual differences that young children have at that very early age.
The debate that often revolves around what a school policy should be for intake into Transition concerns those teachers and educationists who do not want to see that educational ideology that was first introduced diminish: the simple fact that children need a period of readiness for school; children grow and develop at different rates, different paces; and that they should not be put into a situation where they are expected to learn before they are ready. Then again, the debate rages around those teachers who say: ‘That is great, we understand that theory, but this current system is not practical. It disadvantages both us and the students’. Really, that is the bottom line: it is very hard for schools to cope with this.
Our children in the Territory can spend varying times in Transition, in contrast to other systems in other states where often they spend a full year in school before moving on to Year 1. So, you have around Australia a series of systems where some children will spend seven-plus years in primary school, some will spend just seven, depending on the state or territory. I believe the review is necessary now, after 23 years, because there are a number of problems that we should address: the problems faced by teachers in coping with that new group of children who come into their class and disrupt it on a regular basis; the principals, who have to find solutions, to staff that class or staff a class as additional children come into their school - and it is not always easy to find that teacher to cope; we also have to look at the fact that children are often unable to cope with that entry into an established class. I have many examples of students who have found it difficult because suddenly - they are very young - they are placed in a class where there are children who have established patterns of behaviour and feel that they know it all, and almost dominate those younger children as they come in.
As one parent said to me: ‘I was concerned because the child was given a mentor. The child, who was a few months older, felt they had to help them, so their way of helping was always to do it for them. So, the younger child never really did it themselves, never got a chance’. We should look at whether this is the best system for students. Of course, we should also look at the expectations of the parents for their children. What do they really expect for their children in their first year of school?
I want to acknowledge the tremendous work done by teachers in the schools. I am certainly not in any way criticising what they have done. What has brought about this concern that I have raised is that I am concerned for the teachers, the principals and the students, and the workload that they are being asked carry. The Alice Springs feedback I have - and I have to admit I have only approached people in Alice Springs - is that schools do have this intake for three terms, but it creates difficulty. Some children who actually come into Transition in July end up spending 18 months in Transition before they go into Year 1. So, right across the Territory, I would imagine, there are different intake policies that schools have adopted to suit their climate and environment. I say to you that, perhaps, it is time now for us to really make sure that our system has some consistency for students who move around the Territory, as we know they do, and so that students who go interstate are not disadvantaged; that they have the same period of learning that their counterparts in other states do. Also, that we are able to offer parents the same things that they would expect if they were in another state: to enroll their children into Transition.
I know I have asked why we do not adopt a model similar to Victoria because, obviously, the private schools have found this has been very successful. Those children who turn five by the end of April start at the beginning of the year. There is a once-a-year intake. There are disadvantages of doing that. It means the preschools may suddenly become quite full because the number of children who have moved on to school are less than currently happening within our systems. However, I do know that preschools always have a waiting list anyway in most of the towns and, if you give them the right staffing, they obviously can accommodate some children who are ready for school. I believe that is the most important thing.
South Australia is, in fact, looking at their policy at the moment. Western Australia has a policy where children enter school the year they turn six, which is different again. They are currently looking at that model. Queensland also had a model whereby students went into Year 1, and they have changed it. Victoria has been the most consistent of all states in maintaining their entry program, which indicates to me that it has probably been the most successful.
I call on the minister to seriously think about a review of the intake policy into schools. Remember that this would ease the burden upon teachers who have to deal with the numerous intakes throughout the year. It would certainly help schools at the beginning of the year for the principals who have allocated a number of staff on the expected enrolments throughout the year, so they would be able to manage their classes and administer it in a better way. It would mean all our students who go into Transition actually get 12 months of Transition before they go into Year 1 for formal learning. It would also give consistency to the parents of those children who enter our schools, who may also, as we know, move around the Territory. They would know there was some consistency in our intake policy in the Northern Territory. I call upon the minister to please make that review.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, mine is going to be a really hot topic. I am actually going to talk about hot dry rock geothermal prospects, and I thought the minister for Resource Development might like to hear this one. It might interest people in the Territory who want cheaper electricity.
The decrease in the use of renewable energy and a reduction in greenhouse gases – I will try to make this as interesting as I can, but it is good – can be achieved with hot, dry rock geothermal energy. In Australia, it could underpin a future economy that is not based on fossil fuels. Australia has the world’s best geology for this technology and the world’s largest resource of suitable hot rocks - and that is not your barbecue - and the Territory has a huge prospective basin of these hot dry rocks.
In some parts of the world, 5 km under the earth’s crust there are super-hot slabs of granite. The heat from these rocks, in some areas, is held below the surface by a protective layer of insulating rock. The heat is produced by the decay of radiogenic minerals such as uranium. A method has been devised to use the potential of that heat. Put simply, a hole would be drilled to 5 km and water pumped in. The water would then be forced through horizontal fractures created in the rock structure, and returned heated via another hole to the earth’s surface, where the steam would turn turbines to produce electricity.
In certain parts of Australia, the rocks fractures horizontally, making it ideal for such technology. The potential of hot dry rock geothermal technology has been known for decades, but several factors have delayed any exploitation of the resource. It is expensive to drill holes to 5 km but, thanks to the gas and oil exploration industry, the costs of drilling have been reduced. Researchers said a few years ago that the economics of drilling have largely restricted the commercial development of hot dry rock energy to depths more than 5 km. However, they say that, with the anticipation reduction in drilling costs as new drilling technologies come on stream, the economic use of deeper hot rocks will be possible. Detailed research has been carried out, and is being carried out, in several countries, the most prominent of which has been France, Japan and the United States. The research is, perhaps, unique in that the scientific community involved appears to be fully prepared to share its finding as the world searches for cost-effective fossil fuel alternatives.
Positives of hot dry geothermal energy production are many. One is low emissions. The technology produces few greenhouse gases or other pollutants. Current geothermal technologies emit less than 0.2% of carbon dioxide, less than 1% of sulphur dioxide, and less than 0.1% of the particulates of the cleanest fossil fuel plant - and the source is the Sustainable Energy Industry Association. Geothermal energy has a nett positive effect on the environment because its pollution effects are significantly lower that conventional energy sources.
The second positive is little environmental impact. Geothermal power is not associated with environmental impacts traditionally connected with power generation such as acid rain, mine spills, open pits, oil spills, radioactive waste disposal, and the damming of rivers.
The third positive is declining costs. The cost of power generation from geothermal resources has decreased by about 25% over the past decades and, as the research and development continues, the cost will decline further. According to the Australian Greenhouse Office, the benefits of geothermal electricity generation plants would include: a very reliable power supply - the power is continuously available 24 hours a day, unlike solar and wind; the power plant is modular in design and highly flexible requiring a relatively small area of land, unlike coal mining; and it is a secure energy supply with no need for imports.
Earlier this year, an Australian company, Geodynamics, began drilling in South Australia’s Cooper Basin in what will be the first attempt in this country to commercialise the hot dry rocks. The company estimated that its 1000 km2 of leases could hold the heat equivalent in power production terms to 50 billion barrels of oil. The company says that is 20 times Australia’s remaining oil reserves. Hot dry rock technology could supply all of Australia’s electricity needs for a century.
The secrets of the costs of the power is the heat of the rocks. Holes drilled in the Cooper Basin have encountered temperatures of 260C at only 3.6 km depth. This heat is contained in a vast rock body that is favourably stressed. The rocks need to fracture horizontally to create a reservoir to heat the water. A challenge lies in developing the technology to exploit the resources. Geodynamics will be testing some of that technology and identifying any problems.
In other regions of the world, one of the major problems has been major water loss through too many fractures in the rocks. While this has led to the shutting down of some research programs in the US and UK, it is believed that Australia’s geology will allow the technology to work. It is early days in the development of geothermal technology, but the Northern Territory could get in on the ground floor. One of the principles of the Geodynamics company, Dr Prame Chopra, who works for the Australian National University, was contacted by my office. He said that the McArthur Basin in the Top End of the Territory is one of the most prospective hot rock areas in Australia.
Madam Speaker, I would like to table some maps. There is one there for every member, except the member for Daly who already has his copy, showing the map of the McArthur River area.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: A report on the feasibility of hot dry rocks from the Energy Research and Development Corporation 1994 is the most comprehensive analysis yet done on hot rock resources in Australia. It found at the McArthur Basin - and if you look on the map, the McArthur Basin basically covers most of the top end of the Territory - has a huge reserve of very hot rock, more than 225C at 5 km. The surface area is 29 000 km. It is the third largest heat energy reserve available in Australia after the Cooper and Galilee Basins in South Australia.
The 1994 report suggests that more drilling is needed to determine accurately the size of the resource. That is what I and suggesting tonight: that the government does everything it can to ensure that drilling goes ahead, including the establishment of mineral leases to cover hot dry rocks. Unlike some other highly prospective areas in Australia, there is plenty of water in the McArthur Basin region so that water would not have to be pumped over vast distances to be pumped down the hot rock well holes. Customers would also be nearby, at mines and in Aboriginal communities.
The Territory government should consider following the lead of New South Wales and South Australia in offering hot rock leases. South Australia offered licences to explore the Nappamerri Trough in the state’s north-west in October 2000. New South Wales amended the definition of ‘geothermal substances’ under its Mining Act in 1998, classifying them as a mineral, and allowing for exploration of the resource. The New South Wales Mines Department recognises the status of hot dry rock as a Group 8 mineral. This meant that the resource could be explored under minerals rights of the Crown. The first exploration licence for the Hunter Valley was put out to competitive tender in 1998. The tender set out strict guidelines for any future exploitation of the resource. We need to do this in the Northern Territory.
I am not ignoring the potential downsides: hot dry rock technology is really a long-term, high establishment costs and high risk venture. However, the government is not being asked to take those risks - only to support further drilling and to draw up leases so that private enterprise can take the risks. Despite these risks, it offers the possibility of providing abundant cheap power for centuries to come.
If the Territory puts in the groundwork now, it will be prepared with a new power source after its significant gas resources have expired in two decades time. Not only will technological developments allow exploitation of this clean resource which could last for centuries, but there are enormous hot dry rock resources deeper than 5 km that can also be tapped in the long term.
I said earlier that the Cooper Basin could provide all of Australia’s electricity needs and, if that proves to be true, then hot dry rock power from the Territory could be exported to our neighbours in South-East Asia whose own oil and gas resources will be running low in a few decades. I remind members that already, electricity is being supplied to Tasmania via an underground cable from Victoria, so it is possible to export electricity.
Hot dry rocks are an almost limitless free resource. As Geodynamics says - and it is difficult to argue with them at this point in time - hot dry rock geothermal energy is the only known potential source of renewable energy with the capacity to carry large base loads 24 hour per day. This is the only known energy source with the recognised potential to replace fossil fuels rather than just augment them, as is the case with most renewable energy resources. The identified energy potential locked up in known high heat producing granites in Australia is enormous.
The head of the Australian Geological Survey Organisation said this about hot rock geothermal energy:
- In the longer term, the challenge for society is the economic exploitation of the vast amount of geothermal
energy in the earth’s crust. The hot rock approach holds promise for extending the production of
electricity using geothermal energy, but the challenge will be to demonstrate both the technical
and economic feasibility of the approach.
In addressing the economical feasibility of the new process, the Northern Territory can play a role in lobbying the federal government. It is claimed by the supporters of geothermal energy use that its development is being constrained by national and local energy policies, and taxes and subsidies which encourage the use of fossil fuels.
There is a growing amount of literature and research concerning the hot dry rock resource in the Great Artesian Basin and the Hunter Valley of New South Wales, but there is nothing on record about the Territory’s resource except from the 1994 survey which identified the McArthur Basin as a potentially huge resource.
It is time now for the government to show an interest in it; to encourage the Mines Department and scientists to look more closely at it, and to position the Territory for the future exploration and utilisation of the resource if the pilot project in the Cooper Basin proves successful. Such moves would fit in well with the Labor government’s stated keen support for renewable energy technologies and its commitment to reducing greenhouse gases. There may be money for exploration or research through the Commonwealth’s Renewable Energy Development Program. I urge the government to consider this potential, to get in on the ground floor and to be proactive in encouraging the exploration and development of hot dry rock geothermal technology, for the positive future of the Territory’s environment and to meet the Territory’s energy needs.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, crime is causing even more difficulty in Alice Springs. Ask just about anyone and they will tell you it is becoming very worrying for self and property in Alice Springs. People feel insecure that, if they went out, they may be victims of rock throwing or being accosted in car parks. People are begging for money and, on refusal, are swearing. They may be victims of a house break while they are out; or victims of personal harm. Even when they stay home, they can be subject to rock throwing on their roofs and through their windows; and their car being tampered with or even stolen. These are the concerns that the people of Alice Springs have about law and order, or rather the lack of it, in our community.
This is what I was prevented from saying the other day in this Chamber. Why is this government, I ask, turning its deaf ear to the pleas from Alice Springs that enough is enough? Why are members of government preventing the local members from telling their stories? The litany of crimes goes on and on, endlessly. Every day, we read about crimes in newspapers and hear on talkback radio the concerns of citizens about the breakdown of law and order.
The Chief Minister was keen to quote her figures, flawed from the very beginning, when the criteria for collection has been changed for the two sets of figures that she tried to compare. The Chief Minister and her Minister for Justice and Attorney-Gen4eral know full well that those figures they quoted are skewed by the high percentage of non-reported crimes. You hear every day that people are sick of having to ring up the police when nothing gets done. You heard about the businessman, Peter Kittle, who gets property damage in his car yard of $6000 every month, and he does not report them any more. If that is only one business, imagine the number of other businesses in town that suffer the same sort of damage.
I had a constituent who wrote to me and I would like to read her letter. She wrote this to me on 16 April 2003:
Dear Dr Lim,
- I have been a resident of Alice Springs for 18 years and am greatly concerned about the state of
‘unlawful behaviour’ that is present in this town. Juveniles seem to be out of control and the powers
of the police department ‘tied’ with bureaucratic blindness. The threatening behaviour of the juveniles
against people in this town is making law abiding citizens live in fear of retribution and becoming ‘prisoners’
in their own homes. Gone are the days of being able to walk and drive in this town; we now take our lives into
our own hands, even to drive to the local shop. How long is it going to take until something is done to at least
give our police the powers to do their job of law enforcement.
One used to be able to walk the streets of this beautiful town but now, as soon as it is dark, we are locked
behind closed doors for fear of being harassed; people are being stoned driving their cars, or having to
stop their cars as groups of ‘children’ slowly cross a road, then get attacked by them.
Give the police back their powers to ‘protect and serve’, and stop this lawlessness before someone dies. So
many residents who have lived here for many years are leaving, vowing not to return because of the state
of this town and the lack of control of the streets.
Ever since the abolition of mandatory sentencing, the unlawful behaviour has made this an undesirable
place to live. I hope that someone, somewhere, will soon realise that the ‘old’ ways are sometimes better!
Yours faithfully.
That was an indicative letter of the many written to me by constituents over the last six months or so about the increasing levels of crime in this town. Not only are they increasing in the numbers of crimes that are committed in this town, but the severity, the viciousness of the crimes have also been slowly escalated.
Mr Henderson: According to whom?
Dr LIM: Labor’s own statistics, available at the web site www.nt.gov.au/justice/ocp/pages/stats, show that since the abolition of mandatory sentencing, there have been 37 566 commercial and residential properties offences across the Northern Territory recorded by police. Less than 2% have ended up with gaol sentences imposed. The government argues that 70% of these offences are not serious, but refuses to tell us what a serious crime is and what is not.
I say no more beating around the bush with complicated statistics; it is time the government gave us a simple explanation that Territorians can understand when their home is broken into and their property is stolen or trashed. Is it serious when someone’s TV is stolen? Is it serious when someone smashes a car window? Is it serious when graffiti is scrawled all over the walls of a house or a business? A $5000 limit buys a lot. It buys a new second-hand car or two. It buys a new TV set, a video recorder, a CD player, a washing machine. Lose all that and it is a very substantial loss. Is it serious? Not by this government’s standards! The very act of someone breaking into your home is serious to most Territorians, so why is it not serious to the government? The government owes Territorians to tell them exactly what they should be reporting and what will not be treated seriously.
Part of the government’s so-called ‘tough law and order’ regime to replace mandatory sentencing was the new crime of home invasion, which has not attracted one single charge to date. The government’s own figures show the number of people who have been gaoled is continuing to fall, yet the Office of Crime Prevention statistics for the last three months reveal assaults are up 20%; sexual assaults are up 53%; robbery is up 38%; house break-ins are up 23%; and commercial premises break-in are up 25%. These facts speak for themselves. The only thing tough about Labor on crime, is its rhetoric.
More police and tougher penalties are what we need. This town today came out in significant numbers at a rally …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: The numbers were counted, and I am told that the figures were approximately 200. They came to the rally to indicate to government that that is a significant concern in this town, about the breakdown in law and order.
What this government has done, using one of their paid stooges, is to turn a rally of concerned citizens into a racial issue. That was the greatest travesty of justice that this government has done to this town. This town’s people came peacefully to gather as a group to show, just by numbers, that there is growing concern about the levels of crime in this town, and this government continues to ignore that. It is important when, in this town a single woman cannot walk across the Wills Terrace walkway; when good citizens and tourists alike are accosted by beggars and sworn at and threatened with physical injury; where property damage and theft goes on relentlessly - then the debate and attention must continue.
I invite the Chief Minister while she is here this week to go down to the river with me, on foot, so that she can see for herself and, perhaps, experience the fear that others feel for herself. Then tell us whether law and order is under control. The Chief Minister and her government must understand that the severity of crimes now is well past the stage that this town will tolerate.
Today, we heard many people explain why they were there. They told their own stories. Mrs Sue McGrath told about her son, and she was nearly in tears telling her story. She told us that it was not because of a racial thing that she was there. She told us that she was not blaming a black kid; she said it was a white kid who threw the rock. She said it was nothing to do with race. Yet, it was the government’s stooge who turned the whole thing into a racial issue. It has produced a racial divide in this town that has never been necessary.
You accused us of being racially divisive. Members opposite have continued to play this race card so strongly, so regularly, throughout the time I have been in politics …
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I am not sure if you have noticed, but all the members of the government are interjecting constantly while my colleague is speaking. I would ask you to afford him some protection.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have. I have called order on several occasions. Are you challenging the Chair?
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am not challenging the Chair. I am merely asking if you have noticed that each of these people have been interjecting constantly, and if you have, I would like you to constantly call order.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have. I call order when the interjections become out of hand. I will continue to do so.
Dr LIM: With the few minutes left for me to complete my remarks, it is important for the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to understand that he cannot call the people of Alice Springs liars because they want to have this rally …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Greatorex well knows that he cannot call members of this House liars unless he does so by way of substantive motion.
Dr LIM: I did not say that! What I said was that the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General cannot call the people of Alice Springs liars.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker!
Dr Lim: Would you mind freezing the clock? You accorded the minister the same privilege.
Mr KIELY: The member for Greatorex is making quite a serious accusation. He is accusing the Minister for Central Australia of calling the people of Alice Springs liars.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I ruled on that point of order. There is no point of order.
Dr LIM: Do you see that, member for Sanderson? Please sit down, or put on your glasses!
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, I am speaking! There is no point of order. Member for Greatorex, continue your remarks.
Dr LIM: I say again, it is important for the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General to understand that he cannot call the people of Alice Springs liars because they choose to have a rally. They wanted to have a rally so they could demonstrate to government that there is a problem.
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: Let me, in my last couple of minutes, explain why my telephone number was on that poster. Mr Mark Webster, insurance agent of this town, who is very much aware of the increasing incidence of law and order issues because of the number of claims that cross his desk, asked me to support his office. He, over the last three weeks, was out of town on a couple of occasions, lasting several days each time. He was not able to maintain a telephone watch for people interested in the rally. He asked me so he could relieve his business office of the pressure of answering telephones. As the local member, it is my responsibility to support a request from a constituent who needs my assistance.
My office can provide that assistance and, therefore, I am doing a job that none of these people understand. They have been here 21 months, the newest ones of them, and others have been here more than a couple of terms. They do not understand what it means to be a local member. If a member of your constituency asks you for help, I challenge that you say no to them.
Members interjecting.
Dr LIM: Perhaps you did, and that is why the member for Solomon had to help that person in Darwin; I do not know. But, I am saying to you that when a constituent asks you for assistance you provide the assistance as best you can. Because he was out of town on two separate occasions for several days at a time, he was not able to man his telephone and thus …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member’s time has expired.
Dr LIM: I have not. Come on, he is forever doing that …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has about 50 seconds.
Dr LIM: You are forever doing that. The Leader of Government Business knows full well that he continues to do this vexatious jumping up on his feet so he can waste my time. He can waste my time as much as he likes; all it indicates is that this government does not want to hear when there are criticisms about their way of doing things.
When law and order is breaking down, this government does not really care, and all it does is try to get its stooges to organise people to make a rally for the people of Alice Springs that was intended to be peaceful, into a racially divisive matter. That is a real tragedy, when this government cannot see the woods for the trees.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight, I will talk briefly about a family who lives in my electorate. In the NT News dated 30 April, today, the headline is: ‘Father, son die in same ward just weeks apart’. This is the Senge family, a family that I have grown up with in Darwin, in particular around the Millner and Rapid Creek area. I went to primary school and high school with members of their family, playing football and rugby league with and against them. I noticed that the item does a fantastic job of briefly describing the importance of both the father and grandfather with a short story of their life, I suppose.
In particular, it is about the father, John Senge and grandfather, Bernardos Senge. John was 57 years old and Bernardos was 91. I grew up with sons Ben, Aaron and Nathan Senge, otherwise known as Chubby. I called their mother Auntie Naomi and, certainly, when I see them it is like old friends meeting. John played football for the Darwin Buffaloes, the football club that my family has been involved with for approximately 80 years, and also rugby league for the Brothers Rugby League Club, something that I did not know. Nathan, Aaron and Ben all played for the Nightcliff Dragons. I had the opportunity to play junior rugby league with Ben Senge with Nightcliff Dragons. Both Nathan and Ben played Aussie Rules for the Nightcliff Football Club and the Darwin Football Club, and I had an opportunity to play football at both clubs with those guys.
It was a very sad occasion, of course. The family originally came from Broome and in the early 1960s, settled in Darwin and took up employment with the then Darwin City Council. It is a very pertinent story on issues that we are talking about today, I suppose. John joined his father when he was 14-years-old. ‘They lived in a shack by where the Fannie Bay racetrack is now situated. They went fishing and hunting all the time - that is the life they lived in old Darwin and they loved it’ - that is what Nathan said.
I suppose, with other issues we talked about recently in the House, the point hit me that people are living different lifestyles and, as the world changes, people change with it. I definitely hope that, with all the issues that we are discussing in today’s political situation, people have the opportunity to change the way they live as well.
My condolences go to them. My brother, mother and father also had close contact with this family. Aunty Naomi still lives in the Millner electorate and, no doubt, all those connections that we built up over many, many years assisted in my election. My sympathies go out to the family and I know that it must be a hard time, particularly losing two close family members in a fortnight.
Unfortunately, their funerals were today and, due to this commitment of the parliament in Alice Springs, I was unable to attend. My sympathies go out to them and I hope that their family and friends - as I know they have many - get behind them and give them strength today.
I will move on now. I have been listening to the debate, in particular about the protest that occurred today.
A member: It was a rally.
Mr BONSON: Protest, rally; rally or protest. It was very interesting because I saw two things: people who all had one issue that joined them together; at that was what the felt for the city of Alice Springs. The message that I got from there was that there were 200 people - or there was estimated to be 200; I would probably say closer to 100 or 120, and I am a pretty good estimator. They had a concern for Alice Springs and what was happening in their lives. Definitely a group of them had been affected by crime and, in some cases, very serious crime. My sympathies go out to those families and those individual victims of crime. I definitely hope the perpetrators are caught and have their opportunity to go to court and face the charges of the actions that they have carried out. Hopefully, a proper and fit sentence will be handed out to those people.
That is the way the matter should be dealt with: a crime is committed and the police have the opportunity to investigate; they have the opportunity to charge the alleged offender; the alleged offender gets an opportunity to go to court. They get an opportunity to put forward a defence and the prosecution puts forward their case against that offender. A third party, who is the magistrate, judge or jury, of course - depending on how serious the matter - hears that evidence and they make a decision. That decision is either guilty or not guilty. Then a sentence is handed out.
This is an important part of our separation of powers in Australia and in all western democracies. It is a lot different to how it operates all around the world. There are many different cultures where the politics, the religion and the legal system are all combined. That is their cultural background and that is they way they live their lives, and I have no problem with that. In Australia, it is very important. I believe this debate that the opposition have tried to raise is about making issues of law and order political.
The primary example that I see is what has happened in America over the last 50 years. The law and order debate over there is out of control. Basically, it has been shown in different elections - both county, state and nationally - that the people who run the most vicious campaign of penalties are very successful in elections. It is the fear factor. But I believe in leadership. When people are elected members, they have an opportunity to paint - the word ‘Baghdad’ has been used by the opposition, and I certainly do not want to go down that path and deal with the victims of issues that face Iraq. It is very far fetched and dangerous analogy of the use.
As leaders in our community - because that is what we are, every member of this House - we have an opportunity to paint a picture. That picture can be of disaster, or it can be a dream of a better future. The opportunity that I see is that, by working together - and the prime example we heard is what the member for Barkly has done. I wish and I dream that I could be a successful and as effective as the member for Barkly. Obviously, he has had a huge effect on his community. We are dealing with very small electorates, and we are able to get people from different backgrounds together. There are issues there of language, culture, background, misunderstanding and all this type of business, but the basic thing is the family unit is set up - mother, father, children - and if people are able to communicate that across to each other and are able to say: ‘Can you look after your kids’ or ‘Can you look after your brother - or your uncle, your sister or your wife - because they are not doing the right thing?’ If that basic message can be put across, then we can have a huge effect on the community.
The things that I have been hearing from the Alice Springs community are things like the beautiful landscape; the weather here at the moment is fantastic. I was lucky enough to be at the function today for the volunteers and an old, old Darwinite who has been living down here in Alice Springs for 14 years said: ‘You know what? Alice Springs reminds me of Darwin in the 1970s’. I found that very interesting. He was saying that, in the old days, you would walk down Smith Street in Darwin and it would take you an hour. Now, everyone is rushing; they are going off to their next appointment; to be at the next place. He was saying in Alice Springs, you walk down the mall, it is a yarn every five minutes. If you are running late, that is the way it is. This guy is actually a very senior fire officer. He worked with my father and my uncles in Darwin. I must admit, I cannot remember him from the days I grew up in Daly Street, but he certainly remembered me and my parents. That was his feeling of the place.
The other side of it is the community football that is happening in Alice Springs. I am amazed to hear that over the Easter Carnival in the knockout comp, they had 6000 people attend. That is a positive thing. The members of Alice Springs law enforcement, general community, the Mayor, the local members etcetera, can tap into those 6000 people who are attending this community football. Undoubtedly, because of the nature and history of this country, a lot of people affected by antisocial behaviour, disorderly conduct or social crimes - for want of a better term - are of indigenous background. But it is to do with the history of the country. We cannot forget that. But 6000 of them turned out and paid their $5 to get in. That $30 000 they raised goes to CAFNL and it keeps the two competitions alive.
I was lucky enough to talk to the recently appointed chairperson at the function we had on Tuesday night. What I suggested to them is you can run positive messages down at this football. You have a live audience there. Whether it is advertising campaigns, messages, getting NT Health onside, getting the police down there to run community events, etcetera. You have a live audience there: run it! Six thousand people! We would be lucky at an Umpires Carnival, which is the biggest knockout carnival in the Top End, to get 1000 through the gates nowadays. It is different from 10 or 15 years ago. I just find that amazing. I am going down to check this out this Saturday. I will be definitely walking around in the crowd and meeting the coaches, the players, etcetera. This is a magnificent thing.
The Alice Springs Cup is on Monday. We have not heard anything positive from the opposition about this being great for tourism. This is a good thing to happen; thousands of people are coming here for it. I am staying for it. I am ashamed to say this, but living in the Territory all my life, this is the first time I will be going to an Alice Springs Cup. I am looking forward to it; I am excited about it. I am excited about meeting the people down here and talking to them.
Using law and order for fear has a role in our community, do not get me wrong on that. It is a set of rules that determines how we treat each other socially. It punishes us when we do the wrong thing, it guides us to do the right thing. However, the fear factor generated by some of the debates has, in a lot of ways, overtaken the reality of the situation. I know that the member for Stuart is a very genuine and hard-working man, as anyone who knows him would know. He is 100% committed to trying to improve the issues of crime and social disobedience, or antisocial behaviour.
What I am frightened about in this context is words like ‘itinerants’. I have a definition of ‘itinerant’, and the meaning in the definition is totally different to the use of the term we are using now. I will spend another adjournment talking about that, because I am very frightened that we create our own use of language and that use of language is going to be a code or a definition for things that it should not be. I will go into that in more detail.
I have but a short time. I have really enjoyed my time in Alice Springs. This has been a very positive thing. There have been over 2000 people come and check it out, and that can only be good. I hope to do it again next year.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am personally, by disposition I suppose, a bit of a feminist. It comes from the fact that my family had largely a very strong female hierarchy, I guess. My great-grandfather came to this place from Ireland and he brought his mother out. He had six daughters. The eldest of those daughters died today at 3 o’clock. Her name was Kath Mahony. The youngest, ironically, died 30 years ago. Her name was Sheila Moxon and she lived in Darwin. Of all of those six daughters, they pretty much all had daughters as well. In fact, the first male to marry since Tim O’Shea, my great-grandfather, was myself. So, I grew up pretty much surrounded by lots of aunties and, unfortunately, widowed aunties because, for some reason or another, the men in our family died a bit early. I have great respect and admiration for these ladies.
They were born in places like Pine Creek and Darwin. In the case of Kath Mahony, she married a policeman and lived at Arltunga, Lake Nash, and Roper River. For instance, she was at Roper River in the 1940 flood and they lost everything. She was at Arltunga when her husband did camel patrols into the desert. It was a very different place with very different problems besetting women of that era. Because my family were largely publicans, many of them carried the licence, and they carried the licence as women in very remote places, including Borroloola and Larrimah. It was a different era for women and respect for women, for alcohol and what it did to our community, for how communities were built and how people agitated for progress. I thought I should speak quickly tonight about Kath Mahony and her passing. It is not my intention to talk long about her life but it was a remarkable life.
I would like to speak also about my trip to Alice Springs. I came down just prior to Anzac Day and, in fact, when to Schwarz Crescent for the latter part of the Anzac Day commemorative services, the traditional two-up, and lots of conviviality and drinking. I went to the races the next day. Like the member for Millner, I believe it is important when we come to places like this, that we partake of the local festivities.
I noted a few things on the way down. The first is that the highways is in very bad repair. The Wet Season is over. The grass on the edge on the verges of the highway is quite high and is dangerous; I cannot see why we would not be slashing it. The drop-off from the bitumen pavement to the eroded edge is six to eight inches in some places, which is a rollover hazard. I would entreat the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure - who has been talking long and loud about doing the Mereenie Loop and various other roads which is good - to look at maintenance, because it is immensely important that our road asset is kept up to speed. In not maintaining it, it provides some hazards that will contribute to our mortality and morbidity on our roads.
I stopped in Tennant Creek and talked to people in some places. I was quite surprised to hear the Police minister talking about how, if the Alice Springs people get together, they could be a replica of Tennant Creek. In fact, I am surprised that he would put such a case, because I do not think the people of Tennant Creek would see themselves as a shining example for the rest of Australia at this time. Certainly, they were appreciative of his visit when he came down. I talked to a few people who attended that meeting. They had expected the Chief Minister to the Business Round Table but were, nonetheless, appreciative that the minister came down. They believe they have some significant law and order problems that, while not intractable, require a great deal more effort. They have not given up on them, but they will be very surprised when I show them this Hansard about how they are going to provide the great glimmer of hope and light for the town of Alice Springs. I am sure they do not see themselves in such a way.
In Tennant Creek, they were disappointed that the power had gone off inexplicably for a such a long time the weekend before – two Saturdays ago. A couple of people I spoke to - and some of them had association with the power generation facility - still are unable to get back to the people to describe how that happened. Indeed, I understand there have been representations made to the local member, who is yet to get back to people. So, there are power and water problems in Tennant Creek. The power has now gone off there, I understand, a couple of times inexplicably. Remember that this grid goes all the way to Ali Curung, so it is a fairly serious thing when it happens. They are expecting some answers.
There is some scuttlebutt around about some elements of outsourcing of various parts of the electricity supply service, and there is some talk about a change in how some of the repairs and maintenance will be done. It is really important for the local member to convey, from government to the community, how these issues will occur, because they are definitely causing some concern. It is most important that the various ministers that he has much ready and better access to than I have, are able to provide him with some answers to give to the people who vote for him.
In Alice Springs, I was also fortunate enough to participate in a doorknock. We doorknocked a suburb …
Mr Ah Kit: Braitling?
Mr DUNHAM: We doorknocked Braitling; that is correct. I probably …
Mr Ah Kit: I wanted to get that on the record.
Mr DUNHAM: I am not one bit ashamed of the fact that I doorknocked in Braitling. In fact, we doorknocked in several electorates, as members would know - given, I would hope, that they are close enough to their constituents that they would be alerted to such a thing.
In any event, we doorknocked and I probably doorknocked - I do not know, I guess 40 or so houses - 40 or 50 houses. It was very good that there were so many people at home. The issue of law and order did come up, and it came up frequently. It would be a very rare member not to have an attitude that this is a problem. Maybe it is a problem of misconception, maybe it is a problem of erroneous perception. It is definitely – definitely - an issue in the minds people in Alice Springs. I lived here in the mid-1980s for a year in the suburb of Sadadeen, and I know many people in this place. I can tell you it comes up frequently as an issue.
What we have to do as legislators, in the first place, is listen. That has been a very difficult thing because there have been various people who are prepared to comment, who have been gagged in one way or another. It has been very difficult to listen when you will not let people speak.
The second thing is that, first, you have to decide the dimensions of the problem if you are going to in any way address it. This problem definition, I do not think, has taken place by people down here because, in answer, the minister often talks about the programs: we are doing this or we are doing that. The first thing you have do to, for instance, with the restricted liquor hours, is to decide what it is you want to do. If what you want to do is reduce raw consumption or - in one of the answers, he said it gives the police some respite. Instead of picking up drunks that they can go and do other law and order stuff, and we have had some drug busts. Okay, that is what you want to do: you want to restrict the hours to such an extent that the police have the capacity to do things other than chasing drunks. Well, that does tell you that there is a significant problem in any event.
But let us start with that; let us start with defining. It is definitely an issue. If you are not at that stage yet of admitting that this is a significant issue for the town, we have lost the debate. I am talking about us as politicians, legislators in this House. The critical next stage is to define some problems, and then to do some solutions with solution paths and, hopefully, some measuring capacity, because I do not think it is a very good idea merely to measure on the basis of statistics. People will insist on being human, and that is a funny thing. Most people who have something that is calamitous in their life really do not care if they are in a cohort of 10 or 50; the calamity in their life has affected them. That is where our debate has got to go. We have got to go to the individuals that make up these numbers that we bandy around in this House. If they are in a cohort of one, I do not think they are going to draw any great solace from that. If we can say: ‘You are ever so lucky; last year there were 50 people who were bashed on the head and this year there was only one. It happened to be you, but there was only one’. There is great pain and trauma associated with the lawlessness that comes in these statistics that are hidden, embedded in these statistics. So I would like to take the debate there.
It is unfortunate that the style of debate in this parliament has been as combative as it is because, in a lot of ways, most of us are aiming in the same direction. Most of us find that level of criminality and lawlessness abhorrent. Most of us have, within our own family structures, cases that we can cite. Certainly, in my case, I can cite several of my immediate family who have been assaulted in one way, shape or form in Darwin.
This is not specifically an Alice Springs problem, it is not even specifically a Northern Territory problem, but it is a problem. So, first come to that step and then we will get to some problem definitions and some solution trails. But, for God’s sake, do not say this rally did not exist, that it was the great organisational capacity of my colleague, the member for Greatorex, who was able to muster these mindless people into a group, and that it is all a CLP trick. It is not! It is not. For those who are staying over in town, I am happy to give you directions to the area I went when I doorknocked. I am pretty sure you can run your own litmus test and you will come to the same conclusion.
One area I doorknocked was an old people’s area, and had some pensioners there who were fairly frail. There had been an incident the night before. One lady invited me to come into her house because she did not have very good mobility, and was lying on the couch watching TV. She said that she has a fear of going to the letter box, which is 50 m. This is real. This is not something I cajoled out of her, or something she was trying to delude me with; it was a palpable and real issue of concern she had.
So, please, let us get back to the individuals. Please let us remember that statistics are a fairly bland way for us to be surveying this landscape when it is littered with trauma, blood, and pain and suffering. As legislators, we have a responsibility to come at this thing, and we cannot come at it in such a way where we say: ‘All our policies are right. I will put myself in the same boat: ‘All of yours are wrong, and vice versa’. Hopefully, we would like to be in this House applauding your policies. Hopefully, we could get to the stage where, whatever it is we do, works. If we can get to that stage and it is demonstrable that it works and that that is evident to everybody, that is a great day.
I lived in this town, and I am very proud of Alice Springs; it is a great place. My youngest son was born here and I have a great sense of welcome when I come here. I walk up and down the mall at night, but I can assure you that I am a rarity, because most locals will not do that. Most locals are very reluctant to walk up this dry river bed out here, and about going into the mall at night time. So, while I might be able to hold up a sign saying: ‘I love Alice Springs’, and I am happy to do it, I might even be able to stand up here in parliament and say: ‘I have no qualms about walking up into the mall at night’. That is not necessarily an indicator of the feeling of this place.
I was walking up to town, in a group. We walked up into the city to Bojangles where we talked to some local people and backpackers, and passed a large group of very young children who were begging for food. It is quite an eerie feeling in Australia, to be walking along the street and have small children, at a fairly late hour, asking you for money so that they can eat. It is certainly something that offends and confronts me. It is an experience I am sure that is available to members tonight. So let us do our own testing. Let us do our problem definition and problem solution. Hopefully, what comes out of the next round of debates and policies are things that are geared at rectifying what is definitely a problem.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I know it is late but I do have an adjournment to deliver. Earlier tonight, the member for Daly challenged me, I guess, on aspects to do with Rapid Creek. I feel it is right that I should reply to that. We also gave a commitment earlier this evening that we would see parliament out until the end, that we would work to the end, and I am very keen on that.
Before I speak on Rapid Creek, I would like to say two things. I compliment the member for Drysdale on his adjournment tonight. I thought it was very thoughtful and very thought provoking, and I certainly took what the member for Drysdale said to heart. There were a lot of constructive thoughts there.
Secondly, I did speak to the member for Blain before. He mentioned in his adjournment debate that the Top End Boys had not received funding from this government for their series. I explained to the member for Blain that that really was not true, that the Tourist Commission had made an offer to the Top End Boys - which I believe they have accepted - of $10 000 to purchase the rights over film that is made during the course of making their series, to be used by the Tourist Commission in promoting the Territory. It is probably not really the place of government to be investing in a business enterprise like that directly, although it has a great affect for the Territory, we were able to come to an arrangement where the Top End Boys will receive some support from the Tourist Commission for the great work that they are doing. I did discuss it with the member for Blain. I believe he had probably spoken with the Top End Boys some time ago and it was an honest mistake.
I am interested in the statements made by the member for Greatorex before about the Minister for Central Australia lying, or calling the people of Alice Springs liars. I would really like to see the member for Greatorex produce a statement by the member for Stuart
Dr LIM: Have a copy of that. Do not take it away, just make a photocopy.
Dr BURNS: Yes, thanks member for Greatorex, and I will read it later.
Coming to Rapid Creek, it is an issue that is important to me because it is an issue that I came across as a candidate, doorknocking in the area. The history is probably well known to most that, basically, there were proposals some years ago for medium density housing in those tracts of rural land on the Jingili side of Rapid Creek. The residents were up in arms and did not want that; they wanted the amenity of Rapid Creek. From there, the previous government through the department, undertook a consultation process, and out of that came the Rapid Creek Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives.
Although there were many parts of those particular land use objectives and planning concepts which the local people - the people who were interested in Rapid Creek such as the Jingili and Millner residents’ action groups and other groups - had a lot of input, there were basically two main elements that they were interested in: a corridor 50 m on each side of the mid-line of the creek that was to be returned to public hands for conservation and rehabilitation, to be used as a wildlife corridor; and some limits on the sizes of subdivision. I do not have all the paperwork with me here, but my recollection is that there was to be no subdivision below one hectare. So this came out. The residents actually applauded this. One resident told me that they put up a banner that they had made themselves, thanking the minister at the time, and also thanking the previous government, for listening to them and for developing these land use objectives. They really felt that things had really moved on and there was an outcome that we can all be happy with.
Things turned a bit sour. There were a couple of development applications along the creek, and part of the land use objectives and planning concepts were that, when people subdivided the rural blocks down to the smaller size to the limit of about one hectare, the amount of land required to make up the 50 m corridor would be excised off the land and returned, I guess, to the council - into public hands - and become O3 land. That was a very important part of it. The two applications went forward; the purple signs went up; the plans were there for everyone to see; they went in to the Development Consent Authority; and they had the land that was excised. There was also a town plan which the member for Daly, when he was minister, signed off which clearly showed this O3 zone making up the 50 m zone being excised and returned into public hands. In fact, there was a clause in that town plan that actually said that this O3 land was to be in public hands.
So, these plans went up through reputable surveyors and engineers to the Development Consent Authority and came back with a stamp of approval on them. Then something very strange happened. The owners of these two blocks I am talking about actually went back and appealed to the Development Consent Authority, which is quite strange because they had employed engineers and surveyors to put a plan in that was consistent with the planning concepts. Then, when it came back with the corridor down the bottom, they became a bit upset. I guess it is understandable why. So, they went and appealed. Mr Fred Finch, who was Chair of the consent authority at that time, considered those applications. Also, there were elements in there about the size of the blocks. He actually took away the corridor, or the majority of the corridor. What he did, as well, was to allow some subdivisions that were considerably less - significantly less - than one hectare. All behind closed doors; the public did not know what was happening.
So, at the end of the day when it was known what had happened, there was outrage on the part of these residents because they felt that they had been dudded. I am not going to make any pronouncements on the integrity of Mr Fred Finch, but what I can say is that a lot of the residents in the area felt that it had been a mate’s deal that had been done there; that there are certain connections in there, that he had signed off on this thing - which he maintained later was a minor variation - taking away the corridor, and also making these blocks a lot smaller than they were. They felt a bit dudded by that.
Another aspect that I subsequently noticed, was that a number of these people in the area were running around with a town plan which had obviously been touched up by hand with crosshatching to show a difference in the conservation corridor. They told me that the former minister, the member for Daly, had actually given them this map, and said look: ‘Do not worry about the town plan. Everything is all right; this is the plan here. You will not have to lose this land’. I inquired later, after I had been elected, about the status of this map that the member for Daly had given these people, and it had absolutely no official status whatsoever within the town plan, within Lands, Planning and Environment. So, here is someone who was a minister, who was presiding over this debacle, who signed off on the land use objectives and planning concepts. He also signed off on the town plan. Then all this other business is going on underneath.
In terms of the current minister and the issue in Alice Springs in relation to the Hornsby application, I do not really want to comment on that. However, I will comment on the fact that both the members for Stuart and Macdonnell represented the wishes of their constituents in an objection to that particular development, and they were listened to. But here, what the residents thought was that a game was going on; there were deals done for mates behind closed doors. They felt dudded and angry, and a lot of them voted that way when it came to election day.
Another aspect of this was that, when one of the blocks of land went up for sale through L.J. Hooker, who offered a prospectus there, it clearly showed the conservation corridor down the bottom. I was concerned, because there was actually a different map that had come into my possession that was signed off by Fred Finch, with a variation to it, which had the conservation corridor completely cut out, or almost completely cut out. There were just a couple of bits down the end – postage style stamps. So I went to see the auctioneer, and I said: ‘Here is your prospectus. Are you aware of this?’. The auctioneer was very perplexed and concerned because, here he was, offering up a property of a certain area and, because of what had gone on during the debacle and questionable processes, was that the plan that Fred Finch had signed off had a completely different area. There was no certainty in there for either the vendor or the purchaser as a result of all of the shenanigans that went on around it. It made people very angry.
Regarding where things stand now, I am in constant contact with the minister about it. There have been negotiation with quite a number of the landowners along the Jingili side of the creek. I believe agreement has been reached with a significant number of them - in fact, the majority. There are some still outstanding. One of those people is overseas, which makes it difficult. However, we have been informing the residents and the groups who are concerned about Rapid Creek about our progress, and they have been very happy with the way things are going. It is an important issue. They have been very understanding, they realise that just settlement has to be reached.
This is a situation that the minister and this government has inherited from the member for Daly. Tonight, I just wanted to set the record straight about it. Really, he cannot stand up in this place and criticise the minister, the member for Casuarina, after his history there. It is a pretty poor old history. I remember it. I do not have all the paperwork with me, but I just wanted to set the record straight tonight.
In conclusion - I suppose I should have started off with it, it is late at night. Even though it is late at night and we are all a bit tired, I have certainly enjoyed the sittings here in Alice Springs. It has been fantastic and I am looking forward to tomorrow.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016