2004-12-02
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from the Administrator Message No 27 notifying assent to bills passed in the October 2004 sittings.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to report to the House on a most significant development in the Northern Territory’s relationship with the Brunei, Indonesian, Malaysia, Philippines, East-ASEAN Growth Area, BIMP-EAGA.
As honourable members know, BIMP-EAGA is an ASEAN sub-regional economic group designed to develop and support the growth of trade, and promote stronger transport, business investment and other links between the regions of the member countries. The Northern Territory has long had a relationship with BIMP-EAGA, including participating in a number of senior official’s meetings and ministerial meetings, including the meetings held in Mindanao, the Philippines, in 2003. However, in recent months this relationship has been cemented as never before.
In October this year, Darwin hosted the first ever BIMP-EAGA senior official’s meeting to be held in Australia. The meeting was dedicated to exploring the trade, investment and relationship opportunities between the Territory and the sub-regional economic development grouping. I was pleased to welcome and meet with delegations from the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Indonesia. Other delegates who participated in the meeting included officials from the Territory governments, Territory business organisations, the International Business Council, AusAID, Austrade, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Philippine-Australia Business Council. This meeting focussed on the nature and status of the Northern Territory’s participation in BIMP-EAGA; on opportunities to jointly develop mutually beneficial projects; my proposal for a one-stop shop for pre-qualified overseas businesses wishing to invest and trade in Australia; and to link business investment and trade between the BIMP-EAGA region and the Northern Territory.
This business matching register is all about looking to the future and how we can maximise growth and opportunities for our business communities, and has a strong emphasis on linking the rest of Australia through the AustralAsia Trade Route. The one-stop shop will be developed in association with the Chamber’s International Business Council, which will be able to assist by brokering business matching on bringing our resources together to capitalise on business and trade opportunities in the Territory and Australia.
After the meeting, the senior officials toured the port and rail facilities in Darwin, and joined us as VIP guests at the 2004 Northern Territory Export Awards on Saturday, 23 October. The Darwin dialogue was a unique opportunity for engagement with the BIMP-EAGA senior officials, and it signalled an important step forward in the Territory’s role and links with the BIMP-EAGA grouping and its strengthening relationship between the Northern Territory and the region.
Last week, this relationship was further strengthened when I was pleased to accept an invitation from BIMP-EAGA to participate in the 9th Ministerial Meeting and the 12th Senior Officials Meeting in Balikpapan, Indonesia. I am pleased to report to the House that senior officials have decided that the trading bloc should be known as ‘BIMP-EAGA Plus One’, significantly upgrading our status, declaring the Northern Territory as the first development partner of BIMP-EAGA. This new title recognises the Territory’s increased efforts and partnerships in the region, confirms for the first time access to the Northern Territory to allow us to participate freely in all BIMP-EAGA senior officials and ministerial meetings, as well as working groups and informal senior officials meetings. It underscores this government’s determination to build, extend and strengthen our position and linkages in our international region.
The proposal for a one-stop shop business register was also fully endorsed at Balikpapan, and a working group will now be established with the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory as the coordinating body.
These are truly historic landmark developments in the Northern Territory’s relationship with the region which will open doors into the region as never before, with stronger trading and business opportunities for the Northern Territory.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I applaud the efforts of the minister in regards to his efforts with BIMP-EAGA. Not before time, I say. I am not interested in criticising this government. Equally, I hope that they would applaud the long-standing efforts of the CLP governments in achieving observer status with BIMP-EAGA meetings over some time. That status had dropped over the last couple of years, and it is good to see that the minister has recognised the importance of those meetings and has achieved, for himself and the government of the Northern Territory, formal recognition to maintain that situation.
BIMP-EAGA is a sorry story, frankly, in that gone are the heady days when BIMP-EAGA was driven by a strong leader. When one thinks back to the days of President Ramos and the efforts of previous Chief Minister, Shane Stone, BIMP-EAGA was very much on the map in how growth was going to be achieved in those regions. The Northern Territory was well and truly placed because of its relationships as part of that BIMP-EAGA process. Hence, a visit was made by President Ramos to the Northern Territory in recognition of our efforts. Sadly, since President Ramos’ departure there has not really been a leader - and I include here our Prime Minister, who has seen the importance of ensuring BIMP-EAGA gets the drive that it needs from a regional national leader. One can only hope that, with some of the emerging leaders, such as the new Prime Minister of Malaysia, that drive is regenerated.
I applaud the efforts of the minister in his concept of a one-stop shop. I support him entirely in his efforts to strengthen and maintain our relations within BIMP-EAGA. I offer to provide him whatever support - I would hope that he would give me whatever information that he has with regards to how we can all work together in this relationship.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Brennan for his support. Certainly, I will arrange a briefing for the member for Brennan as we move forward.
I accept his comments; BIMP-EAGA did lose its way, particularly post the 1997 Asian financial crisis. However, this was the 10th anniversary of the formation of BIMP-EAGA this year and I can say, from attending the ministerial meeting in Balikpapan, that there is a new drive and energy as BIMP-EAGA moves in to its second decade. The key concept that I promoted to ministers was, in the trade and investment ambitions for BIMP-EAGA, to look at Darwin as BIMP-EAGA’s gateway into the Australian market, and to partner with Northern Territory businesses in accessing that market of 20 million people via the AustralAsia Trade Route - a concept that was embraced by ministers of the region.
We move to the second decade for BIMP-EAGA and I am pleased to see that there is bipartisan support in the House for continuing to support that relationship.
Aboriginal Interpreter Service
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, in the four short years since the Aboriginal Interpreter Service was established through matching federal funds, the service has succeeded in recruiting around 250 interpreters in over 100 languages and dialects. It is a service which has, I hope, fully bipartisan support in this parliament.
For the first time in Territory history, despite legal commentary going back 70 years to the Dhakiyarr trial in the 1930s criticising a lack of interpreters for Aboriginal people in the courts, we now how such as service. Furthermore, it is a service that is proving increasingly valuable in the health sector, and one that is also extending into other areas of government and private sector activity. For example, my department is soon to employ interpreters as a part of the process of reducing antisocial behaviour problems in and around public housing in Alice Springs. This follows action-based research by the Yalu Women’s Project based at Galiwinku, designed to assist people to return to country.
There are problems we acknowledge, particularly within the legal system. It is common that interpreters have gender or kinship prohibitions in particular cases. Many of our interpreters are women and are reluctant to do court work generally, or are averse to doing trials involving rape, violence and murder. This is, obviously, not good for the plaintiffs, the accused or the cause of justice generally. Many interpreters also feel in an uncomfortable situation - the meat in the sandwich, if you like - in an adversarial legal system. We are actively working with communities to enhance interpreters’ reputations and roles as neutral reporters within the court system, rather than as partisan players.
Two trials have recently been adjourned for the lack of a suitable Pitjantjatjara interpreter. This is, obviously, of great concern. We now have an interpreter for these two trials, and another Pitjantjatjara interpreter is in the process of being fully trained in court work.
As minister responsible for the interpreter service, I am pleased to inform this House that the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory, Brian Martin, has agreed to be fully briefed on the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. I am grateful for his interest in the matter and his willingness to seek solutions to the problems the judicial system faces.
At this briefing, strategies will be discussed that will assist the smooth running of the court system in the future. This will also involve working with the DPP and legal services to ensure interpreters are efficiently scheduled on time and as needed. This will be designed to save on delays within the judicial system and, thus, lessen adverse impacts on those who might be called upon to give evidence in what are often inherently difficult proceedings.
I have noted comments from the member for Araluen over the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. I welcome the fact that she shares my concerns and commitment to improving the situation. As I have indicated, we are actively working with the judiciary and other stakeholders to improve service delivery. I trust that support for the work of the interpreter service is bipartisan. I am concerned that the federal government is currently indicating at officer level that they may withdraw funding support for the service. I urge my counterparts in opposition to lobby their colleagues in Canberra to continue funding a service that commenced with federal support under the previous government.
Our service is the best of its kind in the country. No other state or territory can match it, and we need to continue to improve it and maintain the service at the highest levels.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I am going to start by saying: ‘I told you so’. I told you so during the budget process; that your cuts to the interpreter service - your cuts, listed in the last Budget Paper No 3 - are the reason this interpreter service is now struggling. Do not come in here and start whinging about the fact that the federal government is making the cuts.
The other thing is that money was always tied to mandatory sentencing, if memory serves me correctly. You should have been aware that, by withdrawing your support for that regime, that money may well have dried up as well. Be aware that, back in the estimates process and when this budget was introduced, this government cut the funding - long before the federal government ever signalled that they were going to cut funding.
What is the result? We have two trials that were adjourned in Alice Springs last week for want of Aboriginal interpreters. Did I not signal this back during the budget debates? Yes, I did. Did I say that there was a major problem?
Ms Lawrie: Did the CLP not provide an interpreter service?
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection from the Whip. Yes, we funded it. Yes, the CLP created the Aboriginal Interpreter Service and funded it to an amount greater than is currently being funded now. So, these words should be choking the minister when he stands up here and speaks, because what he is trying to do - the fraud that he is trying to perpetrate - is an outrage.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is outrageous.
Mr ELFERINK: The Aboriginal Interpreter Service …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, I have to ask you to withdraw that allegation.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
The deception that the minister is engaged in - the hypocrisy of this minister - is just amazing. Frankly, I have a strategy that might work for the minister: fund it properly - the same strategy that I gave to you months ago when I said that this was going to become a problem for you.
It is fascinating that this minister comes in here and tries to lay the blame elsewhere. The fact is that his budget, by the Treasurer, was cut across the board through his department, with very few exceptions. Now he is trying to come in here and lay the blame elsewhere. I will tell you where to lay the blame, minister. The blame is sitting right in front of you there to your left, and his name is the Treasurer. If you want to go and have a bleat about money, go and bleat to him and provide a proper service to the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, what a woeful response from the shadow opposition. This is the person who stood up here and said to my colleague, the minister for DIPE: ‘Well, I will go off to Canberra with you; I will hold your hand and help lobby for roads money’. However, in this particular situation, we have the Aboriginal Interpreter Service and, as far as the CLP is concerned, it is not on their radar - it is not something they support in policy. They used to support it when mandatory sentencing was around but, because mandatory sentencing is no longer here: ‘We do not support the service’.
Mr Elferink: We are all living happily ever after! Things are so good out there - 14-year-old girls are being raped – in the street in daylight!
Mr AH KIT: How ridiculous! Well, have you gone out and told your Aboriginal constituents in your electorate?
Mr Elferink: You are going to destroy this, Jack! Your ineptitude is going to destroy this! Wake up during budget Cabinet and fight …
Mr AH KIT: Have you gone out and told them that you are lobbying against the Aboriginal Interpreter Service and that you do not see a need for it? Well, you are pathetic! I look forward to giving you a dressing down on the MPI later on this afternoon!
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I report to the Assembly on bushfire management efforts across the various bushfire regions of the Territory.
Members will recall the devastating fires experienced across the Northern Territory during 2002-03, and the tremendous efforts of land-holders, volunteer bushfire brigade members and Bushfire Council control officer in combating these fires. Following these fires, the Bushfire Council of the Northern Territory decided to prepare a report to me detailing the fire management efforts undertaken in each of the bushfire regions across the Territory. I would like to present this report to the Territory for the first time today.
As members would be aware, the Northern Territory is divided into nine fire control regions, with each area reflecting the varying land uses, population density, climate, soil and vegetation diversity found across the Territory. The reports being presented today were compiled by the chairs for each of the nine fire control regions in the Territory in the reporting period. The new Arnhem region, which was established in 2004, will be represented in later reports. Members will note that the report has been split into two parts, one for the northern tropical and the other for the southern arid portions of the Territory. These documents report on different parts of the year. This has been done to best report on the active fire seasons which are distinctly different in the north and south of the Northern Territory.
The report showed that, during the 2003 calendar year, volunteer bushfire crews in the southern reason encompassing Alice Springs, Elliott and Barkly, attended over 120 wild fires. During the same period, crews in the northern region, covering the Top End, VRD and gulf areas, attended to some 230 wildfires. Crews in both regions also undertook many hours of controlled burning, as well as providing important community support through attendance at local functions and events.
Local bushfire administration consists of a Regional Bushfires Committee, comprised of community members with a commitment to developing better fire control management processes and plans at a local level. Consequently, the reports, as well as detailing the events and statistics of the fire season, provide an important insight into the community and land-holder perspective of fires and their impacts. As such, the reports will be distributed throughout the Territory and will be available from the department web site. I will be interested in obtaining a view from interested parties on the usefulness of this reporting process.
As members may be aware, each of the 21 volunteer brigades in the Territory receives an annual funding grant from the Northern Territory government. On top of the $636 000 which was distributed to volunteer brigades in the budget earlier this financial year, the Northern Territory government provides an additional $150 000 grant for the purchase of personal protective clothing for approximately 300 volunteer firefighters. I can attest that that was very welcome. An additional $560 000 was allocated to the program in August this year, which helped buy three new grassfire units allocated to the Beatrice Hill, Douglas Daly and Milne Volunteer Bushfire Brigades. The government also announced, at that time, that an extra $200 000 would be provided each year on an ongoing basis for brigade operational grants, with a further $60 000 to be provided each year for an expanded vehicle replacement program. This was a welcome boost for brigade members.
The Northern Territory government recognises the crucial role played by the many dedicated volunteer firefighters who contribute over 10 000 hours of active duty each year to wildfire prevention in their communities. These volunteers help protect important rural communities, and are part of the vital infrastructure that supports the homes and businesses of Territorians living outside of urban areas. In the coming year, our bushfire brigades will, no doubt, perform their duties with the same professionalism and energy they have shown in previous years. I am sure that all members will join me in thanking the people involved in the brigades for their tireless efforts and, especially, wishing them a happy and fire-free festive season.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, this used to be called a tabling statement, and now we have a mini-statement. There are members of this parliament who understand bushfires; there are several of us here who have actually fought bushfires. My colleague from Macdonnell is still a volunteer bushfire fighter; my son, indeed, last month, was out fighting fires on a pastoral property. For us to have two minutes to say: ‘Gee, we think you have done a good job. Here you are; I have tabled it, and I hope you have a happy Christmas’, is really an offence to this parliament. This matter should be discussed.
We saw parliament pulled up in Alice Springs - fairly unprecedented – so that we could pay a proper tribute and acknowledgement to the bushfire fighters in Alice Springs. We realised that it was a stunt when we were there quietly having an ale with the bushfire fighters, and we looked into the one-way glass at the restaurant and there was the Chief Minister, who wanted to properly acknowledge the Bushfire Council, sitting there drinking with a couple of public servants – did not even come out and join them! It was so important that we had to pull up the business of this parliament to go and acknowledge these people - and I agree that they deserve an appropriate acknowledgement - and we saw the absolute hypocrisy – hypocrisy! - of the Chief Minister sitting there and drinking with public servants instead of, at least, joining these people. So, do not come in here and say: ‘We have a good report, we know what is going on; but you will not have the opportunity to discuss the matter’, because we can see you for what you are. What you are trying to do is hide behind glossy reports of this type to feign concern.
We saw when we introduced the private member’s bill and told you that there was a bushfire season coming up, that some statutory tools might help in reducing fire hazard. We saw the then minister, who is the member for Casuarina, actually renege on that bill - squash the bill - and come back with an exact replica with one or two minor differences. So, do not give us this ‘It is urgent, here it is, we love bushfires, I handed over the equipment, they really love me’, because what we would like to do is use the business of this parliament to look at matters relating to this in a thoughtful and considered way, rather than a two minute rejoinder.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, it was a remarkable outburst by the member for Drysdale. Since I have become minister, I have given more than adequate recognition to the firefighters. I recognise that, over many years, they have probably been short-funded, and I gave them an undertaking that I would try and reverse that situation, and the firefighters appreciate that. I am just amazed that the member for Drysdale would not join, in a bipartisan way, and thank the firefighters for their efforts and recognise that the resources that they have been given are important and well-needed and well-placed.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, tackling child abuse and neglect is an absolute priority for the Martin government. I delivered a ministerial statement in August outlining the position of this government on the care and protection of our children and young people. We have tripled the budget and put on 32 new staff this year. We have instituted the Family and Children Services Advisory Council so that we get advice from people from across the Territory. We understand that these things alone will not stop all child abuse.
A key component to reform of the child protection system is legislation that provides the best framework possible for the protection of our children and young people now and into the future. The Community Welfare Act 1993 has been recognised as being outdated. It has not been properly reviewed or updated for 20 years. It has not kept pace with the contemporary issues impacting upon the care and protection of children and young people. We have listened to the community and we are acting. Today, I would like to table a discussion bill for a proposed act, the Care and Protection of Children and Young People Act 2005.
This bill is a complete overhaul of the existing Community Welfare Act. This legislation will go beyond the scope of the previous legislation. It more comprehensively addresses the safety, care and development of all children and young people in our community, and not just those who are being harmed. It provides opportunity for early intervention by the community and it encourages the community to play a role in creating an environment that optimises the care and development of our children. Importantly, it provides a comprehensive framework for responding to reports of child abuse and neglect. It recognises that one response does not fit every situation. This legislation provides for greater cooperation between government and non-government agencies in responding to allegations of child abuse. The legislation ensures that relevant agencies are able to share information to facilitate inquiries in investigations. This act proposes mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing the services provided to families and children. This will result in a more effective collaboration between government and non-government organisations in planning for the best possible mix of services and to ensure the delivery of quality services to meet the needs of children, young people and their families.
New to the legislation is the proposal to establish a children’s commissioner and a child death review committee. This legislation also brings into line the safety and protection of children who are cared for in some form of children’s services. It recognises the expectation of the community that the time children spent away from families be as safe as possible. The legislation proposes for the screening of any person caring for a child or working with children. This employment screening will go some way to ensure that those working with children have undergone appropriate screening including a criminal history check. I am confident that the proposed legislation will allow for a greatly improved response to specific child abuse allegations by FACS and the police. It will ensure that a system is better able to provide a differentiated response to families in crisis where the safety of children is compromised.
I commend the efforts of departmental staff in the development of the proposed act and for their efforts in ensuring ongoing consultation in relation to the proposed legislation. I specifically would like to thank Anthony Burton, Barbara Kelly, Lee Anne Jarrett Sims and Agnes McGrath.
Individuals, organisations and communities across the Northern Territory will have access to this discussion paper and accompanying consultation paper and explanatory notes paper. They will be able to express their views at public meetings, specific interest group forums, or through written and verbal submissions. At the conclusion of the community consultation, any necessary amendments to the discussion draft will be made and it will be tabled as a bill in the Legislative Assembly next year.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report this morning. The review of the Community Welfare Act has certainly been some time coming. It has been ongoing now for many months, and it is great to see it getting to this point. I will certainly look forward to having a look at the draft and consultation paper. I know the member for Araluen will be particularly interested in this matter.
The minister talks frequently about her government’s concern with regards to child abuse. We have seen in the budget papers additional funding going into that area. Of particular concern over the last 12 months, however, has been the ongoing industrial unrest within the Child Protection Agency. It will be interesting to hear from the minister in her response how that is progressing in respect of the provision of staffing, the workloads that they are facing, and the challenges that they face.
It is all very well to change legislation, but you need the hands on the ground working in the community in this difficult area. The front page of today’s paper says it all. We have: ‘Girl, aged 11, held in mental ward …’. It is a demonstration of the problems that we face with provision of good care to children in great need. The fact that this young girl has spent two months - I suspect in Cowdy Ward - is an indication of the problems that we face.
I wish the minister all the best with the review of the act. I look forward to hearing the information and being involved in the discussions about this act. Today’s paper, however, is a continuing indication of the problems that we face.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, quickly addressing that issue, I agree with the member for Port Darwin that is a very sad and unfortunate case. I was left, as minister, with no alternative but to detain this child in her best interests.
Regarding staff and the industrial relations dispute, things are proceeding quite well. The accommodation issue has progressed a good way down the track. There are still aspects that we need to work on in staffing in some of the regional areas, but they are things that are coming along.
Back to the legislation and the draft discussion bill, this has been warmly welcomed by all of the sector and the wider community. The fact that it is not just being introduced gives the community an opportunity to finetune what is probably going to be one of the most important items of legislation that can come into this parliament, and ensures that we do have the legislative framework for the future.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this Assembly from censuring the Chief Minister and the Martin Labor government for being secretive, dishonest, misleading and duplicitous over its plans for the $1bn Darwin City Waterfront development, and calls on the government to be honest and transparent by explaining to Territorians, who have a right to know, the following prior to financial close:
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly censure the Chief Minister and the Martin Labor government for being secretive, dishonest, misleading and duplicitous over its plans for the $1bn Darwin City Waterfront development, and calls on the government to be honest and transparent by explaining to Territorians, who have a right to know, the following prior to financial close:
This matter, rising before the minds of Territorians, and particularly those who live in this capital city, is one that has the greatest significance. It is beginning to gain a concerted interest from the wider community. Just as a fish left in a bag begins to rot and smell, this whole project is starting to smell, and Territorians are beginning to inquire. It is not as a result of information that they have received that they are beginning to grow concerned; it is because of the nature of the government’s approach to this, which has been wholly secretive, dishonest, deliberately misleading, and duplicitous.
There is no greater decision that faces a government than to lead honestly, particularly when it comes to issues relating to the planning of a capital city. The children who are currently being born, and their children, will inherit that decision which has been put before the people by this government regarding the future of this city. The government has a short time on the stage and, during that time, they are to discharge an immense responsibility. They have a requirement to get it right. They have a contract with the people of the Northern Territory, who are watching.
However, I know that I am not standing alone in my concerns of actions of this government in leading up to this grand decision,. I know that I am driven by a rising concern within the community and that I am not alone in these concerns. I know that this is the beginning of a change. This is a watershed issue, and the Northern Territory community - mark my words - will rally to this issue, attracted to it by the actions of this government leading up to the discharge of their duty and responsibility in decision-making, of such a magnitude that I fear they have lost their own confidence and integrity. They undermine their own integrity by their actions.
There is a sea change occurring and - mark my words - this is the beginning of it. The community is beginning to stand, and they will rally to this cause. There has been secretiveness. It was the little things to start with - the small things such as the excessive enthusiasm of a Chief Minister in describing the path which we will go down. The little lies such as: ‘I will release all information for everyone to assess and to weigh’. We have had those comments made all the way along the line and the actions do not match the rhetoric. It is the little things that irk, such as the release of a travel itinerary; breathless assertions that are made to the Northern Territory community; honest assertions which we believe straight up. However, we are let down again and again. It is those little things that undermine and niggle. Territorians are starting to register that there is a secretiveness, a capacity for dishonesty in small things which undermine their confidence – their fundamental confidence in the capacity of this government to actually deliver on the most significant of issues.
There is a deliberate misleading on issues of height, with one message given out, just hoping that people will be able to accept the naive and breathy assertions of the Chief Minister, and they will swallow it and take it away. However, I give great credit and, I believe in time to come people will come to recognise the work of the member for Drysdale, who took the time to read a document very closely and identify the issues of primary concern that an honest and open government would address which were hidden, obscured, and presented in a misleading manner. It was a deliberate intent to obscure, to hide, to fudge, so that the grand plan can be delivered. I pay credit to the member for Drysdale who will, I am sure, in his contribution, add more to that trail, which adds substance and weight to that niggling feeling that is arising in many Territorians’ minds with regards to the actions and the capacity of this government. They want to know. This is a decision that they want to have some confidence about, and the actions to this point have eroded and undermined any capacity for that confidence.
The confidence issue is an important one to draw upon. When we recognise that, for the time of this government’s opportunity to discharge their responsibility of huge significance, the business community has, from reporting point to reporting point, expressed very plainly their lack of confidence in this government’s ability. Maybe they were trying to find their feet and get used to their style. However, there is something more to it. Okay, economic fortunes change and that confidence level may move up or down, but there is something more to it; there is still that niggling feeling.
When called to account on detail over this project, there was an obvious absence of confidence where not one minister can stand to defend or go out in the public arena and explain to Territorians plainly what this issue is about - aspects of the height process. Not turning up to radio interviews or television opportunities indicates very clearly the departure of confidence. There are many questions relating to the balsa wood model, for example.
This government has clearly manifested a lack of confidence in their own ability to prosecute this. I want to go back further. Why would a government lose confidence and resort to secretiveness, dishonesty, misleading information, and duplicity? I believe it is a matter of conscious. When we are talking about creating something of such historic significance - a permanent legacy and reminder of the discharge of a responsibility at a particular point in time – and there is nothing more significant in the physical form of a capital city and waterfront, you would have to work out what is actually driving this; what is the intent.
The community has lost their confidence, the courage of this government has departed and the tide is turning and the community can smell that this is to serve a short-term political agenda. This is to create the impression that this government can do something. That is what is driving this more than anything. That is why there is such a contracted period of public consultation, and misleading information. There is an air of desperation about this, and the people of the Territory - and the people in the Top End particularly - are growing increasingly nervous.
Why can you not assure Territorians of the financial aspects of this deal when you said that that is the primary basis of your decision? It is not an issue of design, but many Territorians want to know what their waterfront will look like. You are able to produce a glossy picture, but you say that it is based on a commercial premise, your justification for choosing this consortium. Territorians need to know the framework by which this is constructed. You are discharging you responsibility on their behalf. Divulge that, clarify that, so that there is confidence in the Northern Territory community. Make it plain. There are many developers in our community who know the value of land. They know the potential here. They know that 28 ha of prime capital waterfront land …
Ms Martin: Twenty five hectares, Terry, let us get it right.
Mr MILLS: I just said 25 hectares.
Ms Martin: You said 28!
Mr MILLS: Twenty-five hectares. Well, how many buildings are there? What are you doing with it? What is the commercial value? Chief Minister, it is a small and focussed and interested community relative to Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, and Brisbane. This is a different community. They are watching this and for the reasons I have mentioned before - little reasons that have grown into a significant turn of support away from this government. They want to know what the commercial value of their own waterfront is. What value have you placed on it? You have not been able to divulge that. That will turn against you. That same community which is watching this wants to know why you are pushing the planning scheme amendments through. Yes, you can explain it, but there is more behind it. It is this air of desperation, this desire to achieve something in the short term.
There is more about the Chief Minister in this than there is about the future of the Northern Territory. There is more about the future of this government tied up in this project. With that energy behind this project, it is doomed to failure, because the people will decide on this. The people will decide on it and, before you throw a few words across the Chamber to endeavour to strengthen your own position, you will be weakened in this respect. You will say: ‘Ah, the CLP is now anti-development’. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are supporters of appropriate, responsible development.
The people of the Northern Territory need to know quite clearly, with confidence, that the duties that you are discharging on their behalf are in their best, long-term interests. That is why there is a clear contrasting plan that Territorians will become very familiar with. It is coming back to mind to compare and contrast. That is why you deserve censure, Chief Minister. That is why the tide is turning against you and your government because there is a point of clear contrast. Territorians are going to see very clearly an agenda driven by personal reputation, and a legacy that leaves your name on a plaque rather than something that honours the future generations of Territorians. It will turn around; they will see the difference and they will see the point of contrast.
I know where I want to stand; I want to stand with Territorians. I do not want to stand with a short-term political agenda. I do not want to stand with a short-term achievement of someone who can cut a ribbon and be cited in speeches, in the short-term saying: ‘Isn’t this wonderful?’ Then, in the slightly longer term saying: ‘Doesn’t this look a bit like a lot of other places? Doesn’t this look like a lot of other developments that occurred under this particular style of development at this particular time? Our waterfront has changed forever’.
I want to stand with people who say: ‘I think that a low density, minimal residential with a lot of open space in our own waterfront is a preferred option rather than 40% our waterfront now high density residential’. I want to stand on the other side. I want to create a place where people will be able to go and know that they own it; it is their place - public space - and it is not 40% owned by private development and units. I know where I want to stand.
I want to stand with a plan for our waterfront that has one significant structure - just one - that rises well above the escarpment - an iconic feature that sits on the headland. That is what I want to see. I do not want to see - whatever it is; 10, 11, 12 or whatever - buildings that extend way above the escarpment. There is style here and people want to know that their headland is going to be something that is iconic and stands forever - not as a testimony to handing over one section of it to private development to fund a smaller component which is easy to sell in the short term. Chief Minister, there are those in the Territory who are here for the long term, and it is much more than a wave pool.
I want to see a project that is taxpayer owned and managed, rather than developer owned and managed. I want to see a project that has proper links to the CBD and supports our CBD, that works in train with the development of the CBD. I do not want to see a development that works against the CBD economically. Territorians want to see a development that is staged and is in keeping with the economic growth of the entire CBD, not something that is a short-term fix for a short-term political situation that results in a separation between the energies of two important centres within the CBD. You have seen it in other cities. If you are not so blind that you cannot see, you will see in other capital cities where that has occurred; where there have been agendas that have been driven in the short term and resulted in economic dislocation within a CBD or a capital city. You have seen it, Chief Minister. I do not want to see that here.
When we have a 25% vacancy in our CBD and are having difficulty getting people to come into our mall, we have to be satisfied that what occurs there will be done in a way that strengthens and builds the entire economy of our central city - not work against it. I am not convinced - and nor are many Territorians – that what you have described and are proposing to embark upon, will achieve that.
You speak much of gas and gas and gas; however, when you mention gas, Chief Minister, many know that the gas that is coming onshore has not gone into Channel Island. They know that your capacity to do the big deals is not evident. There is no evidence that you have - other than rhetoric, beautiful glossy brochures which you told Territorians you would never do, fine-sounding words and remarkable backflips - delivered on anything. Pool fencing, of course, springs to mind, but I should not go there. Gas is set to come onshore and there was the opportunity for gas to be fed into Channel Island. It never occurred, as you were unable to broker that deal. Territorians know that, and it stands as a reminder of your inability to broker the big deal. It undermines confidence in this project.
From gas, and as a sop to those who can perhaps be easily attracted to bright, glittering objects, throw in a wave pool. How many times have we heard wave pool? I predict that Col Wicking may be writing a little speech that says: ‘Gas, gas, gas, gas, wave pool, wave pool, wave pool, wave pool’. I would like to see something that is more in keeping with the Territory, and that being not so much of an emphasis on a wave pool, but a free and safe town beach, which would be a significant facility that is …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Government members, you will have your chance to reply. You will want your speech to be heard in silence too.
Mr MILLS: … of significant magnitude and a focal point, which is what Territorians need - a free and safe town beach. I do not want to see a project that is focussed on a residential and convention centre. This is our waterfront. The focus on this and the long-term interests of the economy of the Northern Territory is a recreation and a tourism precinct to drive the Territory economy much further than a short-term project which is based on a block of flats or the sale of units. The transfer of an asset from public ownership to private ownership to pay for something that is easily swallowed in the short-term, but will leave a bitter taste in the long-term, I do not want to see. I want to see something there which drives slowly, and increasingly strongly, the Northern Territory economy and its focus on tourism and recreation.
This was once a development that was based on the wharf. However, that is difficult; therefore, this government has excised the wharf area from this project, further focussing and reinforcing that it is a short-term agenda. It further reinforces that the real agenda is something for short-term gain: ‘Let us see if we can get over this next election if we can turn a sod, if we can show that we have the capacity of doing something’. It is much more than that. This is about our waterfront; about our wharf. I want to see a project which links the whole thing together. That was the original plan, and that is the plan which Territorians are going to take again. That is the plan they will support. Once they understand that you have chosen the quick fix in the short-term, and excised the most challenging aspects from this project, Territorians will increasingly walk away from this government. Ultimately, there must be an abiding sense that that project, that development, is owned by Territorians. It must be in public ownership and developed in a way where there can be access to many small businesses in developing it, rather than a single one.
Going to the next phase of this, to reinforce this government’s secretive, dishonest, misleading and duplicitous actions, they are further reinforced (1) by the inability to present front and centre, and explain to the satisfaction of Territorians very important issues related to this deal, but (2) it is also the defensive action of putting up a human shield. You will throw out names and put them in front of you. You will put up the names of different consortia members and say: ‘Oh, you are attacking them’. You are the proponent; this is your project, your process, your plan and your vision, Chief Minister. It is Territorians who will weigh and balance exactly what it is that you are deciding on their behalf. You have put forward a human shield. You will not present yourself for any close scrutiny. You have obstructed questions in this parliament to give you the opportunity to increase the confidence of Territorians on this matter. You have taken that opportunity and discarded it. The concern in the community - mark my words, Chief Minister - is increasing - it is increasing.
We started this journey with a few steps and we ended up achieving this destination. In the long term, we will begin to build a city of distinction which stands the test of time. I do not want to see a city that has at its hub, at its core, high-rise residential - and nor do Territorians - but a city of distinction that has its character and style that is drawn from the uniqueness of its tropical character, tropical monsoon climate, the geography, the history, and cultural diversity. That whole precinct should reflect that in its entirety. The plan that was drawn up in 1999 reflects all of that …
Dr Burns: Yes, and heights to 120!
Mr MILLS: For the honourable member over there who is so blind that he has chosen not to see, so deaf that he has chosen not to hear, there is, of course, place for a significant structure, and it is important that that does occur. Read the plan!
Dr Burns: I have.
Mr MILLS: Read the plan, and Territorians will also read the plan. They will begin to weigh and measure the two concepts that you are presenting. There will be two concepts presented to the people of the Northern Territory, and I know which one they will choose and have confidence in. I know which one they will feel that they have actually been engaged and involved in. I know which one will reflect the character of the Northern Territory. That is what Territorians want. That is the one that I will support.
This censure motion is one that marks a point of change. It is not just about building heights; it is about the future of the Northern Territory. It is about our capital city. Chief Minister, the future of the Northern Territory is in the balance and, at this point, sits with you.
There will be a clear point of contrast offered to the people of the Northern Territory in regards to their capital city. This government will be exposed for its intent to achieve something in the short term. Territorians will not support the handing over of the waterfront development to private ownership. Territorians will support a project that has its focus on driving the economy in the long term, public ownership and tourism.
This censure motion is one that this government has brought upon themselves. This government’s secretiveness in every respect, from the commencement of their time in government right up to full manifestation in the handling of this project, has been clearly plain for all to see. Their blatant dishonesty and duplicity is the cause of the beginning of the anger that is going to be felt in this community.
When I stood before a number of people at Little Mindil on Sunday and began to speak to them, it was not to score any political points, but to draw attention to the issue of a capacity for openness, honesty and transparency. I am telling you, Chief Minister, address this or the tide is going to turn against you. It was reinforced because an invitation was put to you and you failed to front, as you failed to front a couple of times, particularly in this Chamber, when the heat was on. The offer was provided, or the understanding given to the group, that another representative of the Northern Territory government would be in attendance on a matter of significance. Because the heat was on and it was a little difficult, there was no government representation at all. That sends a very clear message to those in the Northern Territory community who have an interest in planning, who have an interest in the …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: … development of the Northern Territory. That is why this …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired.
Mr MILLS: … government deserves the fullest wrath and anger of this Northern Territory community with regards to their plans …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, we knew that there was a censure coming about the waterfront because we read about it in the paper this morning - we knew. We were a little taken by surprise that it turned up at 10.30 am; but bring it on. The important thing to realise is that it has been a bit of a weasel word from the opposition up until this week about the waterfront project. However, now we have it clearly spelled out.
The CLP, the party that was once proud about developing the Territory – and maybe we always did not agree with them about how they developed the Territory and their priorities – and proudly built a Territory for the future, have stated their position on this very clearly. The Country Liberal Party, the opposition in this parliament, is against the $1bn waterfront redevelopment. That is clearly defined because the Opposition Leader has challenged in here - he has said there will be two plans for the waterfront: the one the CLP hangs its hat on, and this one that is out in front of our community at the moment. A proposal, yes, but a proposal in front of our community. It is very stark, it is very clear. What is contained in the proposal - the enormous benefits and the care that has gone into that proposed development - is opposed by the CLP. We have a stark contrast between what is the government’s position and the opposition, and that is good.
I make a point of what this censure is about. The page that was distributed has a number of different points. As I listened to the half-an-hour speech of the Opposition Leader, he said ‘secretive’ and ‘dishonest’ a few times, and used the word ‘duplicitous’ which is in the censure. However, as far as going through the details of this censure, he has totally failed. He ran out of time because he talked about gas! We were trying to find where gas was in the censure. We were trying to find out where Myilly Point and Little Mindil were in this censure. Points (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) which he read with such ferocity into the Parliamentary Record, he failed to address. The Opposition Leader is censuring me on these points and has totally failed to prosecute any of those points.
On that basis, I should just sit down. It is a totally flawed censure; it has not been prosecuted. What we heard from the Opposition Leader was this spray of words that had ‘dishonesty’ in it every now and then, with ‘duplicitous’ …
Mr Henderson: Secretive.
Ms MARTIN: … ‘secretive’, and ‘be warned, Chief Minister’, but totally failed to prosecute a case.
The Opposition Leader asked in (a) what is the full extent of taxpayers’ financial commitment to this project? He did not even mention it …
Mr Dunham: We have been asking you for two days.
Ms MARTIN: I will pick up the member for Drysdale’s interjection. This is a censure where you are supposed to prosecute your points. This is the most serious motion you can bring in front of this parliament, and the Opposition Leader has simply failed to prosecute any part of it.
I am prepared to address all these issues in my response. However, I make the point that there was total failure to prosecute any of these points during the censure, except for writing them on a bit of paper. There is the commitment to these issues, and he failed to even prosecute them and used emotive phrases like ‘doomed to failure’. I will go through those points, but I would like to make some points first.
In condemning the plan we have in front of us, and the government by saying this is about short-term benefits, wanting to turn sods, and about the electoral cycle, the opposition pays serious offence and casts a serious slur on some very fine members of our community.
Mr Mills: Oh, you go!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the opposition Leader says: ‘Oh, typical!’ This is a proposal of a preferred developer. We have gone through a very competitive process, and it was with a lot of pride I said there has been considerable interest from around this country in bidding for this project at the waterfront: 25 ha and a convention centre. There has been a lot of interest from around the country.
It came down to three bidders. We have a preferred tenderer. To accuse the preferred tenderers, organisations and businesses with stature not only in the Territory community but Australia-wide, of somehow being complicit with government for short-term gain is seriously offensive. I give the Opposition Leader the assurance that I will make sure that every single one of his words goes to the consortium members because they are seriously offensive.
The illogical argument of some short-term benefit or gain to the Australian Labor Party, when we have proudly said that this is an 11-year project - how could that be a short-term gain? This is a project of more than a decade, a project for our future. We have spelled out what the first two-and-a-half years will be if we do reach successful financial close. Then, over the next period of time, the other parts of the waterfront will be developed. How can this be short-term gain?
I am going to make sure that the members of the preferred consortium hear what the opposition has to say so cynically about their commitment to the Territory and the project they have carefully proposed, with no dishonesty or secrecy. To take the ones in this picture here, we have Sitzler Bros’ Steve Margetic. He is in it for some kind of short-time benefit? Is he in it for some kind of cynical purpose, some anti-Territorian purpose?
Mr Dunham: He is in it to make money! Didn’t you realise that? Why do you think he is in it?
Ms MARTIN: Oh, so it is bad to make a profit? It is bad to want a return on your investment and be able to pay your workers? That is bad? We note the member for Drysdale’s comment on this. Steve Margetic is proposing a $1bn project that is against tropical architecture that does not respond to community concerns? I think not.
What about Peter McVann from Knight Frank? He thinks it is a great project and is trying to cope with a number of people who have rung him to say: ‘When can I buy?’ This is a cynical approach? Les Platt, from NKEA Architects, who has been around forever - again, after short-term cynical gain? There is Randall Jones from Connell Mott McDonnell. Is Dick Guit of Barclay Mowlem in for the short-term gain as well? Also Paul Lassemillante from Rider Hunt? Then we have the cynical Territory company - absolutely cynical - one Henry Walker Eltin. Never done a thing for the Territory and takes a cynical approach for short-term gain. Here we have Robert Wilson, who Neville Walker keenly involved in this. The opposition says this is just a cynical exercise from them, it is a poor planning concept and they are only out for short-term gain. Stuart Marks, the final one just in this picture, from ABN AMRO. They are a shoddy organisation as well, according to the opposition.
What we have is this slur for half-an-hour from the Opposition Leader, who is now leaving the Chamber, does not want to listen …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Chief Minister, withdraw that!
Ms MARTIN: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister was not present for this debate for the first half-hour!
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale knows he …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw that, member for Drysdale!
Mr DUNHAM: Oh, sorry. I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, stand on your feet, withdraw that comment!
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw any reflection on the absence of the Chief Minister, Madam Speaker. Has she done likewise?
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Yes, the Chief Minister has. I ask members of the opposition to please go straight into the lobby instead of standing in the doorway and disturbing the proceedings. Thank you.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have a very poorly prosecuted censure that does not even look at the details of what was put on the censure motion, then some serious slurring and offence to some really significant Territory and Australian companies regarding cynicism, inappropriate development, somehow being secretive, dishonest and duplicitous when it comes to what is being proposed.
We then heard the tirade from the Opposition Leader, repetitious and simply emotive, without dealing with the detail. Then the coup de grce was when the Opposition Leader said: ‘There is a better plan’. I have a copy of the better plan and I want to refer to it. The Opposition Leader said: ‘This would be a better plan as we have public ownership of the land, and we have …’ – well, I am not sure what else it was in that this is a better plan. However, when I look at this plan, we have a 120 m spire – there is a spire down there at the waterfront. I am sure we would all be terribly inspired by a 120 m spire. There is a lot of stripy stuff on this map, and that is car park. A lot of this is …
Mr Dunham: No, it is not. How come it is coloured green for open space?
Ms MARTIN: … a lot of this is …
Mr Dunham: You are not telling a lie, are you? It is coloured green; have a look.
Ms MARTIN: I make the point that the member for Drysdale has just called me a liar.
Mr Dunham: Yes, you are!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr Dunham: What colour is it?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, withdraw that.
Mr DUNHAM: I believe I am able to call her a liar during a censure motion if she tells lies, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I have just ruled that you will not call it in an aside alone. Withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, I will wait until speak.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw the fact that I called her a liar then. I will do it later.
Madam SPEAKER: That applies to all members. Just because it is a censure motion does not mean to say you can use such unparliamentary language. Please remember, you are supposed to be statesmen.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I point out that the point the Opposition Leader devoted a lot of time in his censure motion to how much better the 1999 CLP plan for the waterfront was. They had a plan; I will give them that. Did they ever do anything about it? No! Nothing ever happened with this plan. It is a bit of paper; we found it. There are many details which go with it about how high you can build buildings. According to what was planned by the then government, it was really carte blanche. You could do what you like. Everything was designated: this was the height without demonstrated merits, therefore, you could do what you like. There is a serious hypocrisy to go on about heights of buildings when your own plan, which you are now advocating, meant that you could build higher than anything we have even dreamed of, and right across the whole planning - we have given you a copy of the building heights - you could virtually do what you liked. There is hypocrisy there.
We do have a plan and, despite the fact that the member for Drysdale takes issue with it, there is a lot of cross-hatching here which is large areas of car park. In this plan, we have a lot of car park; that is good. Lots of public space with bitumen - good, very aesthetic. We also have a beach. However, it is not a stinger-free beach, but it is a beach. It is not a safe water swimming place; it is a beach - good. We have the spire, and also a significant amount of commercial and retail space. No residential, because the member for Drysdale says we are not to have residential down there; that is not good.
However, if you do not have residential you will really bring the community down. That is really important. You really have that sense of dynamism about what happens in your waterfront when you have everybody living a long way away - sounds good to me. Not the principle that has been adopted by every waterfront redevelopment around Australia. We know that the Opposition Leader made mention of those in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. Not the concepts that are being used around Australia, where you actually bring people to live in your waterfronts to get that sense of community - no, no. The CLP says the best plan is to keep all of those people right away from it. After going on about how we could have any commercial or retail there because we have vacancies in the CBD, their plan is for significant amounts - office blocks and retail. That is what is incorporated in this plan.
How can the opposition? Even in advocating your own plan, you are arguing against all the criticism that you are making of what our plan is. It is a really illogical argument that you have presented, both in what is involved in the CLP’s plan from 1999 and how it contradicts what, in fact, you are arguing now. It has not been a very effective plan and I welcome you - take it to our community. Let us see what our community thinks about vast areas of car parking and paved areas, and whether the benefits that are incorporated in our $1bn waterfront development are better or worse than this.
However, the fact of life is that we are the government that has moved ahead the concepts that have been talked about for a long time about redevelopment to the waterfront. We have taken it from being something that would be desirable to have in the future, on which a few planning documents were put out and a few members went travelling overseas to have a look at things in South Africa - we have taken it from travel and ideas to something that is going to happen.
There is some sense in what the Opposition Leader said about moving this project along and, somehow, there is a secrecy or dishonesty about doing that at a reasonable pace. One of the key things that was said by our business community in Darwin is: ‘When are we going to have a convention centre?’ We saw how the CLP dealt with the convention centre. They said: ‘We have a site’. They got very excited and said: ‘We have a site, we are going to clear it, and then we are going to think about a convention centre’. Well, they cleared the site - knocked down the Hotel Darwin. Did they build a convention centre? No.
In looking at the importance of having that convention and exhibition centre, we did the work to establish what size, what capacity, it should have. That was done, which is why we are confident that 1500 plenary session and 4000 m2 of exhibition space is a good target for us at this stage. We did the work for that, but also, to stimulate the Darwin economy, to provide that continuity of work for those who work in the civil construction area, we asked how we could bring the two together. Therefore, we put the convention centre strategically at the waterfront to give it the leverage to go ahead with this project. The interest from around the country was intense, and I was delighted. To be told – or accused - of having some kind of secretive, dishonest, misleading and duplicitous process is simply not the facts.
We have had public consultation which starkly contrasts - let me say, which starkly contrasts - with the kind of consultation that the previous government had over the stadium at the Little Mindil site. For the stadium at the Little Mindil site from February 1999, there was no consultation; it was simply Cabinet making a decision and saying: ‘This is what we are going to build’. That would contrast very starkly. ‘Oh, it is a lovely stadium’. And there is the Opposition Leader heading down to the Little Mindil site saying the Northern Territory opposition wanted to see open space there. They rezoned it B5, mind you, and then said: ‘Let us whack a stadium on it’. We will let residents know, because it was the CLP which rezoned the Little Mindil site to B5. This government went out to the community and said: ‘Is that what you want? Do you want B5 on Little Mindil, the old hospital site, and the headland site?’ Those …
Mr Mills: Duplicitous, dishonest!
Ms MARTIN: It is interesting that the Opposition Leader says ‘duplicitous’. Those are the facts. Maybe the Opposition Leader has not been around long enough to know that in my position as opposition Lands and Planning spokesperson, I put in submissions to that rezoning. It was something the CLP did in government. We went out and asked the community whether they wanted to see that. Your idea of consultation, at the time, was to whack a stadium up there and say: ‘Cabinet has made the decision, it will go ahead’.
Mr Mills: In 1999 a decision was made.
Ms MARTIN: The member for Blain is very inconsistent in his arguments. Let us look at this secretive business. We have had consultations throughout this year with our community and have sought in detail what our community would like to see happen in an area like the waterfront. We gave it a lot of publicity because we wanted a lot of people to get involved in this, and we were very pleased with the community feedback. That community feedback was fed to the three bidders and they were required to respond to that. Therefore, to say that there has been duplicitous behaviour, or secrecy - and I have a list here of all the consultations, all the brochures, all the feedback that has gone out to our community through the year. I would read it out but it is four pages long. No, it is five pages long - everyone who has been briefed, and told what the facts of the proposal are. We wanted our community to be able to comment and give feedback about what was being proposed. Therefore, the opposition has not made any proof regarding the case of tagging this as secretive and dishonest. It flies in the face with what, in fact, did happen - it absolutely flies in the face of it.
Let me just look at the details. I only have 10 minutes left, but let me …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Oh, you can give me an extension of time, if you like.
Mr Dunham: Yes, if you give us the answers, we will. Give us the answers first.
Ms MARTIN: The member for Drysdale said: ‘Give us the answers’, but they were not prosecuted by the Opposition Leader. They were simply not …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, simply get on with your reply. Stop the cross-Chamber chatter. Come on!
Ms MARTIN: I put on the record that this is a most exciting project for Territorians. The fact that we have the opposition, simply for their own political purposes, trying to white-ant it, is a real disappointment for Darwin and the Territory’s future. It is only politics. Be proud Territorians. Be proud enough to stand up and stay it is a great project. Join people like Sitzlers and Henry Walker Eltin in saying it is a great project: ‘We believe in your integrity, guys. We believe in the integrity that you put into this proposal; the commitment you have given to the Territory for 11 years to build something that will make a significant difference to our city’. Yet, what we have from the opposition is white-anting - narky little white-anting - dishonesty in what they are saying about the project and trying to cast the government and the preferred tenderers as having some cynical purpose of their own.
That is not the case. I reject it on behalf of everyone who is involved in the process because I find it seriously offensive - and so will those Territorians who are part of the Darwin Cove Consortium that make up this preferred tenderer status.
Let me go through, as starkly opposed to the Opposition Leader who did not go through, the terms of the censure. The full extent of taxpayers’ financial commitment to this project: I made that clear during the week. We said all along $100m was the leverage into the convention centre and some associated infrastructure. I have said that now for over a year. I do not know ...
Mr Dunham: Plus the land.
Ms MARTIN: I do not know whether the opposition was listening but that was a clear commitment. We said the 25 ha of land would be a contribution, and the member for Drysdale could have popped down to the Valuer-General’s Office and asked for it; it is publicly available.
Mr Dunham: Why didn’t you give it to us?
Ms MARTIN: Because you asked for market value, and that I am not going to give to you.
Therefore, we have the land value on which we will see a very healthy return to government. We will see a very healthy return …
Mr Baldwin: Tell us what it is. We have a right to know.
Ms MARTIN: … to government and taxpayers on with that land. I cannot give you the details of that; it is part of the financial negotiations - which is quite appropriate. If I came here and spelt those out, I would be breaching all kinds of appropriate behaviour in these negotiations. If the opposition does not understand that, then they simply are out of the ball game on this.
I am saying we have put $100m commitment into this convention centre. The land has an unimproved capital value of $25m which we will get a good return on, and the development is one that Territorians will be proud of over the 11 years of the development. As we had in the budget papers this year, there was about $8.2m towards some of the environmental work at the waterfront. This was clearly stated in the budget papers. There was also the payment of consultants and others to help us, because this is a team, both government and private enterprise, working on behalf of Territorians to move these negotiations on and reach a successful outcome for Territorians.
As I said yesterday and the day before, I will come in here and spell out all the financial commitments we have made on behalf of Territorians to achieve this terrific benefit for our city. I will spell it out so you have all those details.
Mr Dunham: Recurrent. No recurrent money? It is going to run itself, is it? Righto. That is a zero.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I pick up on what the member for Drysdale said. Is that all right? He asked if it is going to run itself. This is not a public project; the development is being done. What the opposition would have liked is to carve the waterfront up, half a hectare by half a hectare, and put it out for different developers to develop. Maybe that is what you wanted.
We carefully went about taking the 25 ha, putting it out for a private sector development that would then be sold to Territorians - and they are putting up their hands in droves to buy - so we had an integrated project that could achieve significant benefit for open public space amenity for people in our city and our visitors. We have done it; it is fantastic. Forty per cent of the space in the waterfront development will be public space. The government architect, Bob Nation, said that the government was hoping for perhaps 30% and we have 40%. We have some wonderful public spaces for use.
I know the opposition mocks the wave pool and says: ‘Huh! It is just a wave pool’. It has been very well received. The fact that we have an enclosed, stinger-proof beach, again, has been well received. The fact that is we have two toddlers pools and walkways around the entire project, much of it under cover - more than 2 km of public ownership of this waterfront so that our community can walk around it. We have a sea wall that allows for things such as kids learning to sail, kayaking and windsurfing. We have a public amphitheatre, restaurants, cafes, and some appropriate retail. This is a very exciting project.
Ms Carney: Do you want to answer (b)?
Ms MARTIN: Coming to (b) of the motion, I said I am not going to talk about the commercial value. That is part of our negotiations and I made that very clear.
Mr Dunham: (b) is a no. (c)?
Ms MARTIN: The Planning Scheme amendments are the envelopes. It is your process. The Planning Scheme amendments were put through by the CLP, which said: ‘All this block here will be 120 m high; all this block here will be 55 m high’. These are the envelopes for planning. Take something such as the convention centre. It is 24.1 m high. That has always been established. If you are having a planning envelope, perhaps there might be an aerial. This is the legal framework. Our planners work to this legal framework.
However, we have said all along that this is exactly the same as when you were in government. You put out these blocks. Does this mean that everything in this blue block – which I point out to you - is 55 m high? Of course is does not! It is the overall maximum height, and you have allowed more than that in the maximum height without demonstrated special merit. Under the CLP, you said: ‘Go as high as you like’. You know what Planning Scheme amendments are all about, and this is just, in your terms, a duplicitous argument. For the Planning Scheme amendments, we are using is the same process put through by the CLP. You never allowed appeals to the Planning Scheme amendments. It is up to ministerial decision. Why are you criticising the process you had in place for many years?
I explained yesterday about (e) of the motion, about why we are having both the consultations with the public and final negotiations with the consortium, and also putting those development applications through. It is so that when we do reach agreement - and I certainly hope we do – we will be hitting the ground running. We will be able to - not then, in another six months when we go through those development applications - have it start, and that is very exciting. I am certainly driven in that by the fact that our tourism industry – and I am the Tourism Minister – wants a convention centre, and wanted it yesterday. They did not get it from the last government, and it is going to get it from our government. The preferred consortium won the preferred tenderer status because it was the best bid.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, there was an element of truth in that statement, and that was: ‘there is a stark contrast’. There is no doubt there is a stark contrast between the two parties on this issue. While the Chief Minister would quite happily say that we are out there by ourselves, and criticising the various players in the community who we respect and count many of them as our friends, she must also include in that the Darwin City Council, which is a bit angry with how this is going, the Darwin Business Association, PLAN, which has been involved with this for some months - up to a year - and various people who are now signing her book which calls for: ‘It is time to have your say’. They are having their say, but they are up against time lines that make it very difficult for people to review these documents. The documents lodged last Friday stack that high which, for the benefit of Hansard, is about 20 cm. People want to know what is going on with this, and whether the government is telling them the truth.
With my contribution, I will be able to confirm to people that government is not telling them the truth, and they have every right to be concerned and wary of documents paraded as factual sheets. I, too, will go through the censure motion items, but I will do so in a different way. First, I want to talk about this piece of paper. This piece of paper was able to be commented on. I saw an ad in the paper - I believe it was late last month. An ad appeared which said: ‘If you have any problems come and have a look’. This was the catalyst for anger. This document here is vastly different to the one the Chief Minister is parading to us. It is a document that has an accelerator pedal on it so that the minister can get cracking really early and jam these things through without consulting …
Mr Baldwin: What is it called?
Mr DUNHAM: It is called ‘The Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment’. It closed on Friday, and there were only 15 submissions, which is a problem. However, I guess it shows that you can do these things by ads in the public notices - which I am happy to table - a big ad like that, and it is very difficult for people to actually understand what that means for the future.
Leave granted.
Mr DUNHAM: This is going to be a blueprint for the development of this site for 15 years and objections have closed. We now have minister Burns, who has told us, happily, that this document does a couple of things. First, it reduces the land to which the Wharf Precinct Land Use Objectives and wharf precinct incorporated documents apply. While the Chief Minister can stand up and hold our documents up to ridicule, and talk about what a terrible thing they were, they were actually the foundation document for this whole proposal and they have now been discarded. This will discard them. They are now totally irrelevant to anything to do with down there.
It also discards the fact that some of the issues relating to this precinct saw connectivity between, for instance, the wharf and the city. It has excised the wharf. If you were going to have a public play area with, for instance, a fishing platform - which the CLP built - why would you not put the fishing platform in the wharf precinct? If you were going to have a precinct that had a cruise ship terminal, small pleasure craft, why would you not put the wharf in? The reason they did not put it in is it is too hard. What they have done is excised anything that could be problematic for the developer, they have given them the easy stuff to develop, and they have given them an easy proposal. ‘Let us build flats on the land that you do not have to do anything with. We will take our cut out of the speculative thing that you are doing, and we will use it to build a convention centre and some kiddy pools’.
It is interesting, because the minister, Dr Burns, let the cat out of the bag well and truly with his foreword, which seemed to surprise him yesterday when we questioned him. However, I will read it for the benefit of Hansard. It is the foreword of the document I mentioned, Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment 040032:
This is the Planning minister:
This book:
Therefore, what we have now is all this guise of consultation coming to head which we now know about by virtue of this document. This is the prime legal document; it is not balsa wood models in the mall, glossy flyers that go out, or 3D pictures from the developer - it is this document. This is the legal document that will prevail for the next 15 years. People who have been in the business know that. For instance, someone who has been working as a planner for some time - and her name is June D’Rozario - knows that this is the prime document. She said in a radio interview recently:
She has twigged that nothing in any balsa models, shops in the mall, or glossy flyers will prevail because the minister has told us this is the document.
Planning documents are interesting because, generally, they are put in place long before a development might occur. Therefore, they are a guide to what might happen in the future. This one is working backwards, because the minister for Lands already has a model of the development. He already has on his desk exactly what it is going to look like. If you go to his scheme, it roughly replicates the layout of what is going to happen down there. There are some critical differences, however. One that has been picked up by June D’Rozario and others is heights. I do not intend to go too much into height in this debate because it has been canvassed pretty much through other debates. However, for instance, the convention centre will be 24 m high - the Chief Minister just told us. When this blueprint was drawn up, it said: ‘maximum building height 35 m AHD’. Why would the planning minister say: ‘The Chief Minister has told me to go ahead, facilitate this development and the convention centre will be 25 m, and I am going to allow 35 m’. That is the same as this height here.
These are the people who went to the public and said: ‘Your pool fence is over by 2 mm and we are going to knock you back’. However, when you build down at the wharf: ‘Give or take 10 m, we really do not mind’. This is nonsense! She is claiming that if they want to put up an aerial, this is going to give them some latitude. It will give them latitude all right, because as soon as this thing is done, it is unappealable. The Development Consent Authority will go to this document and say: ‘Gee, they have said 35 m would be better, they want to go to 35 m. The minister has directed us that this is the only document, therefore, we will use this document’. Therefore, they can go to 35 m.
If the government is honest, when we give evidence next Wednesday, we want to make sure that all the heights in the plan are in here. It will be difficult for the Development Consent Authority, even though the minister is saying that this is a single development. Those proposals will come through in dribs and drabs, so we will not even get to see them. You will not see them before this becomes law. When this becomes law, there will be other development applications coming through that will call up this document, and they will not be available for public debate because this document will prevail. That is duplicity.
It is the primary legal source; you are seeking to change the area which is the wharf, to take out the ‘too hard’ bits and get rid of all that integration that was planned for many years. The minister has claimed that this thing is a blueprint. When he went on to Julia Christiansen’s show, he said: ‘This is a blueprint’. We know it not to be so. Therefore, the first application that the CLP will be putting next Wednesday is: please make sure this thing exactly regulates those building heights in there so that they do not change.
I want to talk about the stroke of a pen. The minister will have these objections on Wednesday. Anytime thereafter, a report can be put to him, and the Chief Minister has very cleverly pointed out that what the minister says goes. When she was talking about our question regarding why it is unappealable at (d) of the censure motion, she said: ‘It is up to the minister’. Therefore, Friday next week, we might find the green dream - this green book of the government - prevails. So, all the consultations being asked for on foot will come to nought because it is of no purpose.
One wonders why there is so much urgency about this. My colleague, the member for Brennan, was able to give me some recollections of how long it took for the rail development to take place. It was about $1bn. The Chief Minister claims there is some connection between the two in the size of the scheme. That took 18 months - 18 months! During that period, the amount that the public would be paying was divulged. The public was told exactly how much it would be paying. Sometimes that changed and they were told what the changes were. It was debated in this to parliament. The public’s input was divulged to the public, and it was a document that took some 18 months for the various financial consortia to actually settle.
We are being told that so adept at financial dealing is this government that it will be done within a matter of months, financial of close will occur early next year, the numbers are secret because projects of this type need secrecy in their numbers, and we are not even going to debate in this parliament unless the opposition brings on a censure motion.
The process is a problem, because the public is quickly realising that you cannot trust this government, particularly on issues like capacity. This government is incapable - totally incapable - of getting up the Chinatown development that featured so largely in the budget of not this year, but the year before. It was one of those things that was going to solve all the same problems this is going to solve now. We were going to get employment, we were going to get all these things, we were going to get plasterers, concreters all down there at Chinatown. Well, go and have a look, because that is a terrifying vision of the future - a terrifying vision. Get into one of those buildings next to it and have a look at that site. That could be our waterfront site for 15 years.
Your capacity is on the record. The pool fencing debacle will show that they could not even draw up design specs for pool fences. Now they are going to tell us they can produce $1bn worth of buildings. The other problem …
Dr Burns: Are you saying Henry and Walker cannot do it?
Mr DUNHAM: We are saying you! Your capacities are deficient.
Dr Burns: Oh yes, I think you are saying Sitzlers cannot do it!
Mr DUNHAM: Your capacities are deficient! The other problem you have is that there are people who believe that the four pages of consultation the Chief Minister had and did not want to read out meant that their consultation went to some site and it was taken notice of. June D’Rozario has said that that is a lie. She has quite readily put it on the record, and I will quote her so that it is clear:
These are the statements and undertakings:
It is no good consulting people, getting their ideas and then chucking it in the trash can. What is the purpose? That is not consultation; that is a devious device to pretend that you are listening to people when you are not. Margaret Clinch of PLAN had been consulting for a year on this with the government - a year, she had been consulting. She was most disturbed to find that, at the 11th hour, she too had been duped. You will know, members of parliament, that Margaret Clinch has not necessarily been a great fan and friend of the CLP. However, I can tell you that after a year of negotiating with these people, that she would also have some advice to people who want to vote Labor at the next occasion.
To say one thing and do another is a problem; also to pretend you are consulting and not take advice. Your secrecy on this is still evident today, and there are vast elements of this proposal that are not understood by the people. There are vast elements of this process that are going through in tandem. Some of those, it will be pointless to object on detail, because we already have the foundation source document allowing developments to go ahead, or virtually on carte blanche. The other problem you have with your process is when you call for comment, you then denigrate people as having their own perspective which is wrong. I have told you some of the people who have a problem with this, so do not say to us: ‘We want you to have your say. The CLP thinks you have mucked up this proposal, therefore, you do not like jobs, and you do not like developers’. That is just a nonsense! That same allegation would fall - spurious as it is - to the Darwin City Council, the Darwin Business Association - heaven forbid! - and other groups that are now waking up to this being a problem.
The other thing about process is we do not know who is running the show. The Chief Minister’s knowledge of detail is very deficient. On occasions when we have tried to engage in a public debate, the media and others have been put on to public servants. We want to make sure that the minister who is actually the proponent of this job, being the landowner, should be able to go front and centre and tell us what is going on.
We also want to know what the people want. I believe you should too because, if you are really keen on this thing proceeding, you should do so by way of a mandate. The best mandate you can have to govern is to be voted into government. If you really have the bravado that the Chief Minister manifests here, there is nothing wrong with holding this matter in abeyance. By all means, keep going with some of your planning and negotiation, but it is activation will be an election. We will take this to an election. We are quite happy to take this to an election.
What do the people want? I had a look at the visitor’s book down there. It is pretty interesting that, when the visitor’s book opened on 17 October to 22 November - a period of five weeks or so - there are 11 pages filled with generally positive comment. From last week when people started to smell a rat - from 22 to 30 November, a week - there are six pages. Therefore, in a week there are six pages; in five weeks there are 11 pages. If you keep this thing going and give people the facts - and we will assist with that because we will provide alternative advice from some of the trite nonsense that you are publishing as fact - we will then ascertain whether the public is with us on this.
I prevail on you. A $1bn railway project took some time to develop. You are rushing at this and you will muck it up. The prognosis is not good, given your efforts to date on things like pool fencing and Chinatown.
Let us be truthful and honest. Let us have, for instance, statements by the Chief Minister in today’s paper:
No, that is a lie. That is a fib. Interestingly, I told the NT News reporter that. My comments are not in there, but that is a fib.
There is a site that is there, an icon site in that document. However, that site was to be …
Mr Henderson: 120 m.
Mr DUNHAM: Do you want to point to it?
Mr Henderson: Yes, just here. 120 m, it says.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, let us have a look at it. There is a site in this document that has an icon site marked on it. That page was not made available to people, interestingly, because the bulk of the site we are talking about is 15 m AHD. In the documents that were released, it is 15 m AHD. This page went missing in action. Now it is back, it is important we debate it.
Dr Burns: Read it out!
Mr DUNHAM: That site there, I will read it out: ‘Wharf,’ coloured green …
Mr Henderson: Maximum height.
Mr DUNHAM: ‘Maximum height without demonstrating special merit, 15 m AHD’.
Mr Henderson: Without demonstrating special merit!
Mr DUNHAM: The site that the member for Wanguri is pointing at was for an icon site. It could have been a spire. The Chief Minister knew what it was because she said she would have been inspired by a spire or a monument - perhaps a convention centre or an exhibition centre. Planning documents of this type, obviously, make latitude for what might come in.
I will tell you what it would not have been: it would not have been a block of flats! That is what it would not have been. We would not have had a gateway to our city with a statement saying: ‘Welcome to Darwin. Here is a block of flats’. That is stupid. That is welcome to Hong Kong. We do not want that stuff here.
When the Chief Minister said we would have allowed a 40-storey building, that is a fib - an out and out lie. We would never have allowed it. You can talk to the people who discussed this document, the people who put it together, and you will know that to be a fact. Let us have a debate that has less of these porky pies in them, and you might find it is a bit easier to run through it.
When you are talking to the people, it would be good to make sure that the opposition had similar capacity. For the vast cost that has been used to parade these documents; this one here has three lies in it. What you should do is make sure that the debate is out there. If you are running the case for the proponent, and you are pretending that you are also looking analytically at comment, then you are also a partner with the proponent who is going to share some of the proceeds from it, and you are going to have a complicit minister who allows anything that comes through to – you actually have a pecuniary interest. What you should do is make sure that there is the capacity for comment from other people.
Cost is a big issue for us. We note that, in the Chief Minister’s rejoinder to the censure, she said: ‘We have $100m for the convention centre, $25m for land’. Well, come in, spinner! Who believes that land is worth $25m? Not a hand went up. Nobody believes that …
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: No one believes that. You are like Jack and the Beanstalk. You set off with a cow and you come home with three beans. It is stupid!
What we have is a minister who went to a table to negotiate with various assets. One asset was 25 ha of Darwin waterfront land. She was told: ‘We will give you $25m for it’, and she said: ‘Deal!’ Can you see why we are getting a bit jumpy? We have $100m for the convention centre, which is going to run itself and will not need any money; $25m for the land, which is a sucker punch if ever I have seen one; $8.2m worth of geotech and all the rest of it; and zero for recurrent. Therefore, when we are talking about how good the wave pool is, one assumes there is energy used to compress the water to provide the wave, there is going to be a person with a little yellow cap tied up under their chin sitting in a chair - and no one is going to pay them. Well, well, well.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Drysdale be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Kiely: You cannot do that on a censure.
Mr DUNHAM: Of course, you can! It will be debated until it disposed of.
Madam SPEAKER: Ten minutes.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What we have here is three options for the government. Option 1, the developer is going to build all this stuff, build it and run it. Okay, perhaps that is the case. Perhaps you have such a strong relationship that the developer wants to have a benevolent ongoing commitment to this site, and they will continue to provide those vast amounts of operational money. Maybe that is the case. I would suggest that, for some of them, they would say: ‘Well, if we are going to do that, we want to have restricted public access’. The government probably would say: ‘No, we are not going to do it’. Therefore, let us assume it is free, there is public access, and the developer will not do it. This government has to pay, or local government has to pay; it is the only way you do it. You either do it user pays, when people go down to the toddler pool they pay; pay for their car park and all the rest of it. You pay for it, or the council pays for it. I think you might find that the council does not want to pay for it. I believe that, when you go and talk to them, they might say: ‘Well, we have been talking to the government about this and we are not happy’.
You are parading all of these negotiations through at once. You are going to change the planning scheme - here are the buildings, the commercials, the ongoing costs - and you are telling us you are going to get sign-off in January? Do not think so! That is an easy test to have, because one could easily go the council and ask them and see what they have to say. However, the money numbers do not stack.
The Chief Minister told us it was a $1.2bn project. Her colleague, the Leader of Government Business, also confirms it is a $1.2bn project. It is now a $1bn project. People might think I am talking semantics here but $200m - a plus or minus factor of $200m. The convention centre is $100m, so that is two convention centres that get thrown in and out of the numbers. If there is that amount of slop and latitude in the finances, I start to get pretty jumpy - $200m, plus or minus. For people who used to hold their hand on their heart and talk about a $100m black hole, you can understand why we are jumpy about the fact that they do not even know how much the thing is worth. We know it started at $600m. We have the Chief Minister’s beaming photo on yet another glossy here - $600m waterfront. It was $600m right up until May and, then all of a sudden, it became $1bn.
We know that the Chief Minister has not looked at the planning and design merit of this in as much detail as she has looked at the commercial merit. She said that on radio. She said it is the commerciality that brokered this project. If that is the case, we want to know too. We can do it by way of confidential briefing involving the Auditor-General; questions in parliament, which come to naught; and some questions that we put during the estimates process, that came to naught. This is a devastatingly secret project - absolutely top secret - and we have a really big problem with it.
I now want to turn to the furphy of the CLP being anti-development. I just cannot believe that things have changed so much that we could be sitting on this side of the House being accused of being anti-development. What a nonsense! We are sitting in a building that was objected to by the Labor Party. I have a kid going to university which was objected to by the Labor Party. It is a nonsense! We can go over there and have a look at the Supreme Court building and at the various monuments and edifices around this place that were built by the CLP. The port was built by the CLP. The railway line was built by the CLP. The gas came onshore because of the CLP. Because you are running scared, you have resorted to personal abuse. What is the personal abuse? ‘Nah, nah, you do not like development’.
No one is going to believe that - nobody will believe that. That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard: because we do not like the plan, we do not like jobs, development, various of the persona who are involved in it. Forget that! We like the persona involved in it, we like development, we like development on this site. We think the waterfront should be developed - appropriately. If it is going to be developed over years and years, let us get it right.
The Chief Minister said we have to do this so we can get plasterers out there. Well, the NT News ran a very interesting article. They said these are the approvals for housing since January: 606. In 11 months, 606 units. They only want to build 1400, which is too many on the wrong site. Do you really need this filler? Do you really need to give our land away and give preferential treatment to somebody when, out there, all by itself without the government, 600 units were built since January? By the way, they are called flats.
Mr Burke: Where do those developers stand?
Mr DUNHAM: Yes. So, these blokes here have gone out, taken their own risk, hired their own carpenters and plumbers and all of those people the government said we are against, without any - any, any - government support and built 600 units. How do you reckon they are going to make those decisions over the next 11 years or 15 years, when they know their competition is up against somebody who has not only government sponsored land, but the government as a partner? The government is a part owner of the flats. Of course they are going to have a vested interest. I would not want to go to war against that. I certainly would not want to be speculating on my own developments if I was up against a proposal down here that has the capacity to absolutely flood the market. I have no problem with development, and I applaud these builders. I hope the Chief Minister applauds them too. They went out under their own steam and started building.
Should we have units down there? She said there is a stark contrast. Yes, there is. We do not think there should be residential down there. We do not think we need buildings with that height down there. We think the process should be open. We think that people should own their land and continue to own their land. We think there should be an enormous amount of open space and parks down there. We think that that site should articulate with the other major elements that are its next door neighbours, particularly the CBD.
The CBD is struggling, and there is every event that this proposal will put the CBD in a very parlous situation. Only a week or so ago, the Vic Snack Bar shut. People might not go and get their toasted sandwich there, but I do. I know there are another two or three shops going to shut as soon as they get through this Christmas period. We have a big problem with our CBD. We have a precinct - meaning stand alone precinct - down there that will compete against that CBD negatively. We have a wharf development that includes cruise ships, small ships and commercial ships. It has a fishing wharf on it. It has a variety of concessions there. Why would you not include it in it? Why would you not include the existing infrastructure - of which is not much - into this facility?
I was also interested, while I am covering some of these issues, that the environment minister spoke about this yesterday. There are a couple of things she said that I thought were pretty interesting. One was she gave the environmental credentials to it. When you go through some of these books - and it is pretty difficult to do because there is actually three or four of these - I noticed that they are going to delist the Travellers Walk or Chinamen’s Walk. How did I find that out? It is in brackets on page - sorry, it is unpaginated - section 7, 17.17 of the Darwin City Waterfront technical reports. It talks about three sites within the vicinity of the project on the Register for National Sites: all storage tunnels, steam house and Travellers/Chinamen’s Walk, and in brackets, ‘to be delisted’.
Unless you went and paid $20 and bought these four documents, and were as stupid as I was and sat up at night and read through them, you would not know that that site, which is marked on their plans - if you pull out, for instance, the planning minister’s book, you will see that he has done it for you. If you do not know where Travellers Walk is, you can pull out Dr Burns’ proposed planning scheme amendment and you will see ‘Travellers Walk’ marked on it. Well, that is going to be delisted. You would have thought the environment minister, when she spoke, would have said: ‘Oh, by the way, I have changed my mind on some of this heritage stuff, and we are going to chuck out a few of those things’. However, that was not the bit that worried me. The bit that worried me was when she finished her comments, she said: ‘We are getting on and doing it’, or words to the effect of: ‘We are rushing through this thing’. I do not take any great comfort from that. I do not see the need for the speed, to rush things through so we cannot look at it.
The Chief Minister also talked about the complexity of land valuations and how we asked for market valuation, and she could not tell us as it was commercial. However, she could tell us if you went to the Valuer-General you would find out. I am happy to table a letter. I have written twice to Dr Burns seeking land valuations and I will read it into Hansard:
I also sought information on the Darwin Hospital/Myilly Point project.
For a month, this minister has refused to give me this. The Chief Minister has now told us that it is $25m. I can see why they are embarrassed. Actually, that is a good point: did the Valuer-General tell them it was $25m and could they table that valuation advice? I would be absolutely stunned and horrified. We also know that not only is that what it is worth now - it should be on their books under accrual accounting - but when Dr Burns gets through his various proposals here, it will be worth much more, and so we would like that number as well.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, member for Drysdale.
Debate suspended until after Question Time.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be voting on the censure motion regarding the waterfront development. However, it gives me an opportunity to at least debate an issue that should have been brought before us a number of times, perhaps, as ministerial statements.
On 19 August 2003, I asked the same question and we still have not had a ministerial statement. I was offered a briefing, but I believe that, when you are spending what was, at that time, $600m - and now $1bn - the public needs to hear the briefings. This is the only place they can hear that. They want to know what the government’s plans are.
We are dealing with planning, which is always a controversial issue. On this side of the House, there are people supporting their preferred concept and, on the other side, there is a concept supported by the government. We need vigorous debate, not only about whether the CLP or ALP plan should be the preferred option, but how it is going to be developed, how much of taxpayers’ money is going to be spent, and what will be the effects on the Darwin area with the addition of approximately 3000 people living in this area. That is almost a whole electorate, if they are all voters. However, it is a fair number of people being put on the tip of the Darwin peninsula.
A lot of questions need to be debated, some of which the Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for Planning have debated. We should be debating issues about the environment. This area was a polluted area, and there will be a lot of dredging and removal of mud from Kitchener Bay. There are a large number of questions still to be asked about the finances and, of course, about planning itself.
I will start with the planning issues first. Planning issues take a while to, basically, sink in. These are fairly complex issues. I know why the public has difficulty dealing with them, because they are hard to understand. I received this letter from Margaret Clinch. I know the member for Drysdale said that Margaret is not particularly pro-CLP. I have never regarded her as pro-CLP or pro-ALP; she has always been a defender of what she thought was good planning. Sometimes we do not agree with her, and sometimes we do, but she has a heart of gold and she battles under fairly trying conditions. She is looking after her ailing mother at the moment and, at the same time she is doing her best to look at these issues of planning.
I will read part of her letter so that it is recorded in the Parliamentary Record:
I have said that in parliament before. I believe we should have been able to see what else was being designed for this area:
I will not go through the rest of it, except to quote:
Yours sincerely,
MA Clinch
Convenor
Margaret raises a really interesting point. At the present time, we have land use objectives set out for Darwin under the previous government’s Central Darwin Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives. The minister, I presume, has introduced this document, Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment 040032, which will override the land use objectives for the wharf precinct. At the same time, we have a plan in the Mall showing what the development will look like. What is interesting is: what happens if the Development Consent Authority does not agree to the planning amendments? Is the minister going to override the Development Consent Authority? Is he going to allow the Development Consent Authority, for instance, to say: ‘No, we reject the planning amendment and we want to retain the existing planning amendment’? If that happens, will the minister override it? Say he does not override it; then we have the existing Darwin land use objectives that do not match the plan over there.
If I was to look at this in the cold, light heart of day, this is a fait accompli. The reason it is a fait accompli is because the government has built a model, with Harbour Cove, set in the land use objectives to make that model work, and it knows that. No matter what the Development Consent Authority recommends, that will not happen because the government has gone so far down this path that it is not going to come back from that point.
I do not think that is good planning. The model should not have existed. If the government had a concept plan - but that is more than a concept, that is halfway to being there – or an idea that we should develop this as residential/commercial mix, then it should have at least said: ‘We will change the land use objectives to allow such development to occur and, when we have done that, we will then, after that has had public debate …’ - whether that should happen or not – ‘… ask the consortium to see if they could do a development in this area under those land use objectives’.
What we really have is a development that has been developed against the existing land use objectives, in opposition to them, that needs to have a change. We know that the government will make sure that change occurs. That is a bad planning system. It is, to some extent, making a mockery of what should be a far more open, transparent and ‘community listening’ process. The community is not going to feel very happy if they put forward all their comments about the proposed planning scheme amendment if they know that, no matter what happens, no matter what recommendations come to the minister, she will override it.
Notwithstanding that, and presuming that these planning concepts will go through, I am bewildered as to why all the residential land is 34 m up to about 48 m. If the government is saying that only 10% of buildings will be higher than the escarpment, why does it not just remove those buildings and give them a special exemption and make sure that the maximum building heights for all the other buildings is 15 m - they cannot be higher than the escarpment? If someone wants to put an aerial on them, well, they can ask for an exemption by putting in an application to the planning authority for that. However, this does not give people any heart that there would be buildings that will be below the escarpment. If the government really believed that, it would make the maximum building height lower. The maximum building height in the existing land use objectives is 15 m. Why that cannot be, I am not sure. It certainly does not send a signal of confidence to those people who are concerned about the escarpment, as Margaret Clinch has said:
I do have not a lot of sympathy, I must admit, for the Bridgeport people. I imagine that there is probably a certain Development Consent Authority Chairman who has not much time for them either, because he was involved in some of that development and lost his job because he had concerns about how some of that development would occur. I must admit, in popping down there to see which building blocks which building, I noticed Bridgeport blocks the Esplanade, the Esplanade blocks the Horizon, the Horizon blocks the Indonesian Consul, the Indonesian Consul blocks Withnall and Maley, and the Darwin City Council gets blocked by the lot! The other thing is that the public do not see anything.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, the public do not see anything. I must admit that I find those comments a bit hard to take, although what it highlights, I believe, is poor planning.
We are looking at problems with high-rise development in Darwin. We now have what I would call one of the most woeful high-rise building to be erected in Darwin; that is, this new 33-storey building - on four blocks of land, 400 people, no open space except a little tiny miserable bit on the fifth floor. To me, that is the poorest type of planning we could have, but they are going to allow that sort of planning. What is the next building going to be? Right next to it to block it out? You could put four of these buildings in that area. Why are there not some requirements that high-rise buildings must fit within a certain decreasing zone as you get towards the sea, so that buildings do not block other buildings. A classic example would be on the corner of Dinah Beach Road and Tiger Brennan Drive. People passing there, at the moment, would notice a whole pile of units being built which block out the units that were further up the hill, which had a nice view of the sea. When you hear one group of people complaining about views, there are certainly many others who may not be living in such fancy units, but they also have problems. I believe we have major problems with high-rise development as regards the blocking of one another’s view. It is an issue that really needs to be looked at.
Getting back to the waterfront. I listened to debate this morning and I deliberately went down to look at the model. I am a supporter of the waterfront development; I said that from day one. However, this waterfront development has gone from a convention centre to a residential development. It went from $600m, and we have not been told why it will be an extra $400m. What changed that development cost? Has the developer said: ‘We need more intense residential development in that area’? If you look at that plan, you need to step back and say: ‘What are we really building here? Are we really building a ghetto?’ That is a very large number of people living on a small piece of land. It reminds me of Kurringal Flats to some extent – not knocking them at all – with the same style with a bit of open space between them.
Mr Dunham: Kurringal on the bay.
Mr WOOD: Well, in style. I am not saying the people – I should ask you who is going to be able to afford down there. I am not sure it will be Territorians; there will be a lot of investors. However, it has that same feel about it, and I am not sure that is the type of dense development you need on the waterfront.
Again, as I say, people can have their arguments which way you like. The CLP’s version of the wharf precinct did allow residential development but that was more towards where the tanks are, where the old Darwin railway station was, and around about where Perkins are at the present time, in that area there. The actual seafront around the wharf was more commercial and open space. That has some merit.
I do not think people really knew, when they said they supported this development, that the plan we see in that shop over there is what we were going to support. I would rather see the government come up with some alternative models so the community has a choice to see whether something else might be better. Perhaps the opposition might be able to find a few dollars and put up a model of their plan. I would have liked to have seen the two other plans so that we would have had a choice. There is a lot of money going to go into this project which is our money. I know the Opposition Leader has spoken about the finances; I have asked that question a number of times. In fact, I have asked five questions on the waterfront project. I realise it is $100m, you might say, in cash. We have been given a price on the land, but I must admit that just giving the unimproved capital value is not realistic. That land there would be worth lots more money for development than $25m.
There are other costs that have not been shown up; for instance, infrastructure. I imagine there would be fairly substantial sewerage, electricity and water requirements for a population of 3000 people. Whose job will it be to put that infrastructure in? I am sure in parts of Litchfield Shire in an area of development, the developer has to put in all that infrastructure. However, as I and people know from the Wickham Point development, the government sometimes puts that sort of infrastructure in and tries to recover the costs later on by the use of those services. I certainly believe that the government should say whether it is going to cover infrastructure costs as well.
On some more planning issues, I ask the government to explain why we need such intensive residential development on the edge of the peninsula. We know that it is going to introduce at least 3000 people, therefore, what have we done to look at improvements to traffic flow? We only have two major roads that come into the – you are supposed to say three, but the two major roads are really the Stuart Highway and Tiger Brennan Drive. We are now putting an extra 3000 people there. What is going to happen as regards traffic flow? What is going to happen as regards public transport? There is a transport corridor coming down the side of Dick Ward Drive. Is the government looking at any way of using that as a public transport corridor - light rail, monorail, anything like that? If we do not start looking at these sorts of issues soon, we will have an awful lot of people - add the 400 people that are going into the 33-storey building, as I presume there are going to be more of those buildings – on the peninsula.
I also ask the government why it has not looked at more open space? It does mention 48% of this land is open space, but how much of that is public open space? Is the open space there for the benefit of the people who live there, or will it be for everyone to walk through? When you see pictures of the model, you see open space between the buildings, but is that open space for the people who live there? Do they have a place to hang their washing, or are places there specifically for them? Is it all public open space or open space just for the people who live there?
Mr Henderson: Yep.
Mr WOOD: I am not sure what the ‘Yep’ was for. Was it …
Mr Henderson: All open space.
Mr WOOD: That is right.
Mr Henderson: There are no compounds.
Mr WOOD: Regarding the people who will live in this are, will the cost of owning one of these apartments in such an exclusive area - that is, the waterfront – be only for those who are wealthy enough to own it? Are we developing a fairly exclusive estate, which is really land that belongs to the people and, yet, people will be, to some extent, restricted from living in that area simply because they could not afford to? If you are going to have residential, why not look at low residential development or even low hotel development similar to what is at the Hobart wharf? They have used the wharves for two-storey high development. That fits in well with the theme of the sea, which is how we should be developing this area. Could I get an extension, please?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted a further 10 minutes in which to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: There are just a couple of other points, Madam Speaker, and I will be quick.
On the environmental side of it, which is another area worth a ministerial statement, the Chief Minister has made some statements about contaminated soil and various issues like that. I would be interested to know what is going to happen to polluted soil. What is going to happen to the mud from Kitchener Bay? We believe that could be fairly highly polluted. The Chief Minister said that would be dumped in the harbour in accordance with the Office of Environment and Heritage’s Environmental Guidelines. Many people would like to know where that is going and what precautions will be in place to ensure that mud, with its potential contaminants, will not damage the harbour. I would like to know about the environmental plans for relocation of contaminated soil and mud.
I was also asked by someone whether anyone has checked the mud in Kitchener Bay for unexploded bombs ...
Mr Dunham: High risk, according to that.
Mr WOOD: High risk? Thank you, member for Drysdale. I have not read the technical report, but I would be interested to know if that is going to be taken into account when cleaning it out of that area. Are there any other World War II sites that might be discovered there? Has anyone done any checks on that?
Also, will all the environmental reports be done before the development applications come through? I presume there can be no development applications until it has been given the all clear. Will those environmental reports be available to the public?
I have only touched on some of the issues, which need a lot more intensive debate. I need a lot more time to study some of these matters. The member for Drysdale bought a book into parliament earlier called Technical Reports, Darwin City Waterfront, which I did not know existed. I was surprised to see that the Chinese Walk, known as Traveller’s Walk, will be delisted. Margaret Clinch, who fought very hard for that - and we got half a walk in the end because the development encroached some of that walk - will be very disappointed to see that it is going to be delisted.
We really should be able to do better than that. We have this huge development; we should allow our heritage to have a fair bit of priority when it comes to preservation of that history because, after all, this is going to be a tourist precinct as well as a residential precinct. However, I would have thought the main reason we are having this is to have a tourist precinct. Therefore, to keep as much of our history there as possible, is extremely important.
Just to finish up, I believe there is an opportunity lost with this development to do something a little different about moving people from the wharf from the convention centre to the centre of Darwin. I still believe we should be looking at something that moves people - something like an airconditioned cable car or a monorail - because I cannot see people at this time walking from the convention centre to the mall because it is simply too hot. If you have the association of pensioners and old-aged agriculturalists, or something, meeting at the convention centre at this time of year, they certainly are not going to walk from there up to the mall. Yes, they might catch a bus, but why not put something there that would attract people to come there? Some people have said a monorail. I believe you could put something like a cable car with bubble type airconditioned little cabins that took people there. It could go right across to the wharf so you can take people from the wharf to the convention centre, up the escarpment, right down to the mall, and maybe finish somewhere near the Darwin Central Hotel. I believe we have to look at some additives. If we are going to make that place feel like it is part of Darwin central, then we have to put a good communication or system of transport for people there.
I have said before I support the idea of the waterfront development. I believe that the residential development is overkill. I am not necessarily opposed to some residential development. However, it is taking away what most people felt was a waterfront that would still be theirs. Even though there is open space, I know that when you get residential people living close to the water, people feel that they are actually on private land.
A classic example of that sort of feeling is at places like Dundee, where you walk along the front of the cliffs there and, even though it is public land, the private land comes so close to the edge that you feel you are intruding. That can be the same when you get development like this, with those fingers sticking out. When people walk around, are they on public land, are they on private land? There is nothing wrong with some residential. It should be lower, and more in keeping with the wharf-type development, as I said, like Hobart, where you see the two-storey development. The number of people should be far less - 3000 people down there is far too many people. We should be making sure the escarpment is visible from the sea, not from the other way around so much, although that is important as well. If you can see it from the sea, you will certainly be able to see it in reverse if that happens.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, firstly, in my contribution to this debate this afternoon, the opposition has failed to prosecute its censure motion in every case and every part. What we heard from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Drysdale was just a bucket on the proposal as it stands. Obviously, the opposition has taken a view that they would scrap this proposal, and that there would be no way, if they were returned to government after the next election, that this development would proceed. It is very clear for Territorians, after today’s debate, that the opposition would scrap this particular proposal. I think it is very sad, given the enormous amount of consultation that has gone into this development.
The fact is that the whole process has met the highest probity standards in regards to the process. The probity auditor has signed off on the process in the expressions of interest phase, the bidding phase, and the tender evaluation phase, and that has been made public. We are now in a period of contract negotiation with the preferred development.
The first parts of the censure motion talk about the government being secretive, dishonest, misleading and duplicitous. I do not believe that the opposition has prosecuted that at all. In regards to who is opposing this development, certainly the opposition is opposing it, and the people in the Bridgeport building have concerns. However, as the Chief Minister and my colleague, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, and Planning, have stated, discussions are taking place with the proposed developer and the Bridgeport people to see if their concerns can be accommodated, as the people who live in that building have significant concerns. Then, obviously, there are people from various planning groups who will always have concerns in regard to development …
Mr Dunham: Darwin City Council.
Mr HENDERSON: When we look at Darwin City Council, I believe the day should come when we amend the Local Government Act to require the voting records of individual councillors be put on the public record, as they do here, so we can see who is voting for what. Given the political colours of the Mayor at this point in time, obviously, there is motivation to murky the waters. As minister for business in this government - and that was why I was keen to talk in this debate - I know that the large majority of business groups in the Territory are very excited about this particular project. The TCA, the Chamber of Commerce, the individual business associations …
Mr Dunham: The debate is about planning, not business.
Mr HENDERSON: Okay, the Darwin Regional Business Association has concerns in regard to the linkages between the development and the CBD. However, I believe they will be accommodated because this development is about growing our city, bringing people and life back into our city, and bringing vibrancy and a world-class facility of the convention centre, right into the heart of this city. That is going to generate additional business for everyone in the CBD. It will see property values increase and increased commercial activity - given the convention centre and the increased residential dwellings there - which will all bring business opportunities back to the CBD.
The genesis of this debate and, in particular, in conjunction with the original decisions about the siting of the convention centre, is that there is a group of people with vested interests in the CBD who wanted the convention centre built next to their particular hotel or in the city. However, the government took the view that, if the taxpayers of the Northern Territory were to invest in the capital costs of a convention centre, we had a responsibility, on behalf of the taxpayers, to leverage the maximum amount of private sector investment to get a return on the taxpayers’ investment. If we had plonked the convention centre next to someone’s hotel in the CBD, then the additional value of private sector investment would be far less than the $1bn project that is evolving before us.
This is a government that is doing everything it can to maximise private sector investment in the Northern Territory. And guess what? This is an opposition that is supposed to proudly represent the conservative side of politics, and the business community. I do not believe that it is wrong in any way at all that the consortium would expect a return on that investment. That is what investment is all about. When the Chief Minister was reading through the august array of long-term business people who are heading part of this project - people who have confidence in the Territory and have invested before and they will invest again and want a return – the member for Drysdale said: ‘All they are interested in is a profit’. What is wrong with making a profit? I thought that is what drove this country and drove the economy …
Mr Dunham: Their motivation should be different from yours! Don’t you understand that?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you have had your turn.
Mr HENDERSON: … not public sector spending which can only come from the banks or from the taxpayer. What we want to see is private sector investment. We have managed to leverage, as a result of the $100m investment, a $1bn project. I do not think that is a bad return on public investment at all. The enormous opportunities for the next 11 years that it is going to create, not only for the construction industry and everyone who supplies, supports and services the construction industry here in Darwin, but certainly as a result of the convention centre there will be an enormous boost to the tourism industry here in the Top End. That is not a bad return on investment.
Part of this debate has been about what the costs are, what the returns are, and what the financial details are. We have not reached financial close, and the Chief Minister has made a commitment that, when financial close has been reached, then the terms and conditions of that will be placed on the public record. However, this is a public/private sector partnership. There will be a revenue stream return to government, based on increasing property values over 11 years. Therefore, there is going to be a return on that investment that the taxpayer is making in regards to the convention centre and also the land. The terms and conditions of those are still being discussed and concluded. To ask for that level of detail really shows no understanding of how these processes play out.
The member for Brennan would understand. He was not running out there in the public as we were trying to reach financial close on the railway and saying: ‘These are the terms and conditions and what we are putting in and what other people are putting in’. Certainly, with the railway, I had every support from the opposition at that particular time.
Let us look at the benefits to the Northern Territory: $250m in Stage 1; $100m a year in Darwin. When we look at the great projects that are happening in the Territory at the moment - the LNG plant, and at Alcan - yes, many Territory businesses are going to do very well out of that. However, they tend to be at the bigger end and in the specialised end of town. What we are talking about here is the construction industry in the Northern Territory and the tourism industry, which is the backbone of our small business sector. The one thing through the Cabinet process that I have championed, and am very proud to see through this particular preferred consortium, is their commitment to local content.
As I said in answer to a question in the House yesterday, the railway achieved 80%. I am very confident that this project will achieve more, and it will be at every phase of this project - from the design, the engineering, the supply, the servicing, and the contracting. And guess what? All of those businesses that will benefit from this project are businesses which are currently operating in the construction sector. It will give them certainty of a significant project over 11 years. No more boom and bust depending on what major projects may or may not be around at any one point in time.
That certainty has been welcomed very loudly by the Territory Construction Association. I urge the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Drysdale to talk to the TCA about their opposition to this particular project. I am sure they will receive a very frosty welcome from the TCA in terms of politically trying to drag this project down - and for what advantage, I do not know. I urge members to talk to the TCA, the Chamber of Commerce, and the business people in this community. They are going to be very disappointed that the party they once supported could be so negative regarding this particular facility.
When we look at compare and contrast, well, what would we put up? I am not across the details of planning schemes and what have you, but when I look at the great proposal that was put out in the CLP’s particular project, from what I can see here, there is certainly more car park in this particular proposal than there is open space. I can see – one, two, three, four, five six – six car parks, a fair bit of open space and not much else. I believe Territorians deserve a bit more than a car park …
Ms Martin: And a beach.
Mr HENDERSON: And a beach, and a ‘future major community facility’ – whatever that is - that could go to a height of 120 m.
Mr Dunham: Wouldn’t be flats, mate. It would not be flats.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, it was certainly going to be car parks. I would rather have people living in the CBD generating economic activity …
Mr Dunham: You have car parks. You have a six-storey car park.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, cease for a moment. Member for Drysdale, you had your turn. Allow the minister to have his.
Mr HENDERSON: … generating economic activity, population growth in the CBD, extra spending in the CBD, than a car park. I am sure many Territorians will agree.
When the Leader of the Opposition talked about courage deserting the government and we are running away from this proposal, nothing could be further from the truth. I am looking forward to seeing the display that is currently sitting at the top of the mall in the Paspaley Building going on display out at Casuarina Shopping Square. I am going to be proudly standing by that display talking to Territorians about the proposal for the waterfront and our city. Unless I am very much mistaken, this proposal is going to be very widely supported. No amount of knocking and termiting of this project by the opposition is going to put me off from being out there promoting the benefits of the project, not only to the economy, but to the future of Darwin.
This will be a world-class facility at the heart of our city that is going to be a thriving hub, not only for the people who live there, but for the whole community of Darwin to enjoy its open spaces and recreational activities. It will have a convention centre that is going to be the envy of the nation and bring a huge boost to tourism, particularly in the Wet Season. The convention centre, combined with The Ghan, is going to bring people into Darwin at a time of year when we have never had people before.
In respect of the opposition knocking this and calling for a referendum, they can put up their car park and 120 m spire, and we will put up our convention centre and integrated development. I am pretty certain which way Territorians will jump.
Hot off the press, I have a media release from the Territory Construction Association, the voice of the construction industry. I urge the opposition to speak to them. I will quote from the release:
A ringing endorsement!
The once-proud CLP which used to champion development in the Northern Territory has been reduced to a pale shadow of its former self, just nitpicking and knocking a project that has the support of the majority of Territorians. If the CLP think that they are backing the right horse by their opposition to this, unless I am very much mistaken, they will regret the day that they brought this on in the House today.
I can say that, if they do not have the confidence to send out the statements of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Drysdale to significant business groups and people in the Northern Territory, I certainly will, to show them where the CLP is at in relation to vision, confidence in the Northern Territory economy, and confidence in the consortium partners who will build, who have massive experience and expertise with developments in the Northern Territory, nationally and internationally. I have every confidence in their capacity to pull this off. I am amazed that the opposition has been reduced to publicly denigrating this project and denigrating the people who have put their hearts and souls into this.
Ms Carney: How do you describe June D’Rozario’s comments, then?
Mr HENDERSON: I disagree with June D’Rozario. It is not often that I do, but on this particular …
Mr Dunham: But is she allowed to say it?
Mr HENDERSON: She is. She is allowed to say whatever she wants.
The opposition purport to be the future government in the Northern Territory after the next election, and they are on the record today saying they would scrap this project. They are comments we will be reminding them of. When they talk about being secretive and dishonest, and bag the Chief Minister for not attending the meeting at Little Mindil the other day, I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition, in his statements to those people, talked about their background in relation to Little Mindil.
In 1997, minister Mike Reed rezoned the Little Mindil site from open space to B5 tourist business - back in 1997. Was there any discussion with local residents then? Was there any consultation? ‘We are proposing to rezone this to B5’. There was not; there was no discussion.
In 1998, the CLP government called for expressions of interest for the development of this site, and MGM Grand submitted a proposal to develop a millennium bowl - a $70m project. In February 1999, the government accepted the development proposal with not one word of public comment - not one word going out to the community asking: ‘Do you support this? What do you want?’ It was hypocrisy to stand down there and talk to those same residents and say: ‘Well, we have rezoned it open space’. What confidence would anybody have in the CLP of their capacity to change their spots from their track record in public consultation?
It is a very sad day for the Territory today to see a party that did wear, very proudly on its sleave, the capacity to develop the Northern Territory. What we see today is a party that, increasingly, looks to faded memories of the history of the Northern Territory; a party that has no vision for the Northern Territory, outside of a car park; and has no confidence in the Northern Territory in being able to go out to attract private sector investment and see the private sector get a return on that investment.
It is interesting that the member for Brennan has not contributed in this debate. I believe the business community is going to be up in arms about the opposition’s position on this particular development, and there will be loud calls for the Leader of the Opposition’s head as a result of his position on this. Today could start the come-back for the member for Brennan.
Madam Speaker, this motion has not been prosecuted. It does not have the support of the Northern Territory government. It certainly does not have the support of the peak business organisations in the Northern Territory. It does not have the support of the government. I move that the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
You will recall, in November 2003, the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act was passed by this House of parliament. This historic piece of legislation provided the framework for settling Aboriginal land and native title issues associated with a large number of the Territory’s parks and reserves in a way that reconciles Aboriginal interests with the government’s commitment to retain the existing parks and reserves in the Territory for public use and enjoyment, while also expanding and enhancing the Territory’s parks system.
The legislation enacted by this parliament is a testament of the foresight of this government and its commitment to resolve issues in a way that brings unity to the community, not division, in a way that ensures the responsible economic management of government resources and maximises benefits to all Territorians.
The Framework for the Future legislation is set to bring about a resolution to the majority of land and native title claims over Territory parks in record time, with the avoidance of protracted and costly litigation. It has resulted in a win/win situation for all Territorians. For indigenous people with attachments to the park, it has provided a sense of relief that at last their connection to the country has been recognised, and that they will be given a meaningful say in the future management of these wonderful areas. For the general public, it has provided a sense of certainty to know these park areas will continue to remain open without entry fees or permits being imposed, and that many tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money will not be wasted in the courts over countless years ahead.
I speak to this parliament today of the consequential amendments to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. These consequential amendments build upon the foundation stone which was put in place through the Framework for the Future act, and provide a basis for establishing joint management arrangements between the joint management partners in ways that are inclusive, transparent and equitable. The Parks and Reserve (Framework for the Future) Act brought together the government’s core objectives of securing the national parks for the future, protecting biological diversity, developing recreation and tourism opportunities, and providing a basis for employment and regional economic development.
The bill to amend the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act now facilitates the implementation of this vision. It provides a way forward to enrich the management of our parks and reserves, by recognising traditional Aboriginal culture and acknowledging and validating Aboriginal land management practices that have shaped the landscape for more than 60 000 years. In developing this bill, the government has taken the view that joint management of parks and reserves in the Northern Territory can provide a wide range of very significant benefits.
These include, but are not limited to, the following: resolution of costly and divisive land, native title and compensation claims, and mitigation of threats to the future integrity of the NT reserve system; opportunities to improve land management overall by sharing information and resources and conducting land use activities in a more coordinated and integrated manner, combining both western scientific and indigenous knowledge; a greater sense of community ownership of management issues and enhanced community involvement in decision-making; improved relationship with neighbours and enhanced regional approaches to conservation, especially in the management of fire, weeds and feral animal controls; an opportunity for the expansion of tourism and allied industries to extensions to the reserve system, and enhanced visitor experiences by increased exposure to an interpretation of indigenous culture; enhanced potential for cross-agency ranger training and exchanges between the NT Parks and Wildlife Service, Parks Australia North and community-based ranger programs; opportunities for reducing administrative overheads and achieving more targeted use of resources in the application of natural and cultural resource management; improved opportunities for building capacity through the sharing of information and techniques between indigenous people and non-indigenous land managers; and enhanced opportunities for indigenous training and employment in the management of country and other initiatives by government in relation to the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of Aboriginal people.
Overall, these benefits provide for a more inclusive approach to park management so that both indigenous and non-indigenous people benefit from an expanded understanding and appreciation of the management of country, as well as improved social and ecological outcomes.
Let me take members through the specific provisions of the bill. New section 22 defines the interpretation of terms in the bill, and new section 23 establishes the relationship between this bill and other provisions of the act. New sections 24 and 25 of the bill enable the minister to secure the valid declaration of those parks and reserves where their status is in doubt as the result of the Ward decision.
New section 25AA establishes that the joint management partners for a park or reserve are the Territory and the traditional Aboriginal owners, and they are together responsible for management of the park.
New section 25AB outlines the overall objective of joint management, which is to jointly establish an equitable partnership to manage a comprehensive and representative system of parks and reserves for the benefit of traditional Aboriginal owners and the wider community, whilst protecting biodiversity and serving visitor and community needs.
New section 25AC outlines the principles of joint management, including the recognition of Aboriginal interests, culture and knowledge, whilst maintaining the statutory responsibilities and functions of the minister.
New section 25AD outlines the process of preparing a joint management plan for a park or reserve which, importantly, retains the current robust process of public consultation.
New section 25AE prescribes the required contents of a draft joint management plan, which will ensure a strong measure of public accountability in the planning process, and in determining procedures for dealing with issues which affect the interests of traditional Aboriginal owners and other stakeholders in the park or reserve.
New sections 25AF to 25AI detail the processes for development and implementation of the plan of management. New section 25AF requires the minister, after receiving a draft plan, to table that plan in the Legislative Assembly. New section 25AG details the procedure for adoption of a joint management plan, which is the same as that for a plan of management prepared under section 19(2) to 19(5) of the principal act. New section 25AH sets out the procedures for amendment or revocation of a joint management plan. Amendment to the plan must follow the same processes as the adoption of a new plan, including tabling in the Legislative Assembly. Revocation of a plan takes effect through the adoption of a new plan created through the same processes that I have just mentioned. New section 25AI specifies that, once a plan comes in to effect, the joint management partners must manage the park or reserve in accordance with the provisions of the plan.
New section 25AJ allows for the joint management partners, by agreement and through the plan of management, to modify the right of Aboriginal people to use the park or reserve for safety or environmental reasons.
New section 25AK outlines provisions relating to managing the park or reserves before a plan comes into operation. The overriding premise of this section of the bill is that the park or reserve will be managed on the ‘business as usual’ basis that was established in developing the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act.
New sections 25AL and 25AM deal with the issue of mining within parks. The amendments do not affect current provisions for exploration of mining in parks; however, do provide an opportunity for the joint management partners to provide an opinion to the mines minister for consideration before granting a mine or petroleum interest.
New sections 25AN and 25AP outline the functions of the land councils in relation to parks and reserves. These relate primarily to consulting with traditional Aboriginal owners and Aboriginal communities and groups which may be affected by decisions of the joint management partners, and the distribution of monies to Aboriginal owners in accordance with the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. This will provide the Territory government with the necessary statutory certainty and protection in relation to the identification of the correct traditional owners, and the distribution of income.
New section 25AQ deals with the creation and application of by-laws. This section of the bill draws heavily from the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park Act conferring on the joint management partners the same by-law making powers as were previously conferred by the former government on the Nitmiluk Board.
New section 25AR clarifies that the lease does not create a subdivision within the meaning of the Planning Act.
Finally, clause 5 of the bill provides for the amendment of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act 2003 to allow for the regulation of a Parks Land Trust.
The government will be consulting on this bill over the Christmas break. This may result in the need for some technical amendments to be brought forward at the committee stage.
The establishment of joint management arrangements for parks and reserves is not something new to the Northern Territory. In fact, the first formal joint management arrangements to be entered into between a government and traditional Aboriginal owners anywhere in Australia occurred in the Northern Territory under the previous government at Cobourg Peninsula more than 20 years ago. Since then, joint management has become widely accepted across Australia and is rapidly becoming the norm rather than the exception.
Over recent years, indigenous joint management arrangements and partnerships have been put in place in every Australian state and territory, as well as in New Zealand. In New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia, legislation has been enacted which provides for transfer of parks to traditional owners with joint management. Similar legislation has been foreshadowed in Western Australia. The reason for such widespread adoption of this approach is that, in this post-Mabo native title era, such arrangements make sense and contribute to the resolution of native title issues and enrichment of the parks system, rather than posing any threat.
While members opposite may prefer to live in the past and favour the prohibitively expensive litigation course, I am proud of the leadership my government has shown in resolving, in such a positive way, issues that were not going to go away. It is the Territory governments firm intention that the Northern Territory provide a model of protected area management that should become the international benchmark; one that secures the ecological integrity of our natural environment, is innovative and flexible with respect to park management, underpins our vibrant and exciting tourism industry and provides a world-class visitor experience, enhances regional economic development and encourages local community involvement, acknowledges and respects the rights of indigenous peoples, and creates a place at the table for indigenous people to participate, in a meaningful way, in the future management of our ancient lands and outstanding parks system.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce this legislation today. It fulfils a commitment made to Territory workers some 10 years ago. The purpose of the bill is to introduce legislation that provides for a scheme for long service leave and benefits for building and construction industry workers in the Northern Territory. Let me provide some background to the introduction of this bill.
In most industries, long service leave is provided either directly by Commonwealth, state or territory legislation or through federal and state awards. In normal circumstances, entitlement to the full benefit falls due after a minimum continuous period of employment, generally of 10 years, and pro rata provisions are available under certain circumstances.
However, this situation is different for the building and construction industry where the itinerant project-based nature of the industry means that workers have to move from employer to employer, often interstate, to find work. The situation prevents workers from accruing sufficient continuous work with the one employer to become eligible under normal long service leave provisions.
In recognition of this phenomenon, all states and territories, with the exception of the Northern Territory, have established schemes that provide for the portability of long service leave benefits for workers in the industry.
Given the very welcome expansion of major infrastructure projects in the Territory, the government has been examining what role it can play in attracting skilled labour. One key factor is working conditions, both in remuneration and the working environment. Recognising the need to make Territory working conditions more competitive, in March this year, Cabinet directed the establishment of the Construction Industry Reference Group or CIRG. The CIRG has been tasked with coordinating a raft of reforms within the industry. Specific reforms being considered by the CIRG that have been adopted by government include: builders licensing; building indemnity insurance; general regulatory building reforms; contractor payments; and the subject of this second reading speech, portable long service leave arrangements.
The bill presented to the Assembly has been developed to suit the Territory’s construction environment, and follows extensive consultation with industry stakeholders. We have also sought specialist advice from scheme administrators in other states, together with a number of independent actuarial reports. For ease of reference, I will go briefly through the key features of the scheme as detailed in the bill.
The introductory part of the bill contains a number of essential definitions, including ‘construction worker’ and ‘construction work’. In this respect, emphasis has been placed on aligning, as far as practicable, the provision of this bill with the proposed Construction Contract Security of Payments Bill, the existing Northern Territory Long Service Leave Act and the Building and Construction Industry Northern Territory Award 2002.
It is also worth noting that the scheme and benefits will apply only to registered construction workers. People working in a managerial, clerical, administrative or professional capacity will be excluded. A key feature of the bill is that, where there is any doubt over coverage issues, the board will have the power to make determinations to rule on the issue.
Part 2 of the bill then goes on to discuss worker registration requirements. The bill requires the registrar of the scheme to set up a Construction Workers Register that will contain the worker’s employment details, including details of days worked and normal pay. Employees and contractors will be eligible to apply for registration under the scheme, and eligible service from 1 January 2005 will be counted towards the accrual of a long service leave benefit. Part 2 also includes provisions covering the deregistration of a person under the scheme.
Part 2 of the bill also details conditions for the accrual of long service leave credits. Subject to any determinations made by the board, the registrar will credit a registered worker with 6.5 days for each 260 days of qualifying service. After a period equivalent to 10 years of service, registered workers will be entitled to 65 days of long service leave. Thereafter, the worker will be entitled to 32.5 days leave after each five years of service. Special arrangements will apply to employees who die, retire or cease to perform construction work.
Part 3 of the bill addresses the requirement for the registrar of the scheme to establish a Construction Employers Register. Construction employers must register under the scheme and provide information to the registrar. Penalties apply to those who fail to register or provide information. This part also requires every registered employer, after the end of each six months reporting period, to provide a report to the registrar that includes the name of each employee, the number of days of service of each employee, and any long service leave granted by the employer during the current reporting period. This is necessary to assist in maintaining the viability of the scheme, particularly in regard to the integrity of data and employment records.
I turn to Part 4 of the bill. This part deals with the funding of the scheme. I should point out, at this stage, existing schemes in other states are financed and funded through two distinctly different methods: a levy on building projects over a certain size, with payment made at the time of registering the project by the prime developer or permit holder; or direct payment by the employer of an actuarially determined amount of the employee’s ordinary or normal pay.
After considerable consultation and deliberation, the government has opted for a project levy model. A levy will be determined in the regulations and will apply to construction projects costing $200 000 or more. Residential construction complying with the Building Code of Australia class 1a(i), which is a single detached house, and class 10, a non-habitable building or structure - for example, a private garage, shed, fence, swimming pool, etcetera - will be exempt from the levy. The levy must be paid before the commencement of construction work of, if approved by the board, at a later time, or through instalments. Interest charges would apply for late payment.
The bill empowers the board, if necessary, to determine the point at which work commences, the cost of the construction work, and the party liable for payment of the levy, which would usually be the developer of the project. Penalties will apply where there has been a failure to notify the board of the construction work, and the levy will apply to both Territory and Commonwealth government projects. The government recognises that decisions of the board have potential significant financial implications, particularly in the case of very large projects and, for this reason, the board provides for a reconsideration and review mechanism through the board and the local court, if necessary.
The next part of the bill details the administration of the scheme and the establishment of the board. It is intended the scheme will be established as a government statutory body administered by a tri-partite board of equal numbers of employer and employee representative, with an independent chairperson and other representatives appointed by government. All members of the board will be appointed by the minister. The board’s corporate name will be NT Build.
In the administration of the scheme, two of the board’s critical powers will be the ability to borrow and invest money for the scheme, and the ability to make determinations that will contain all of the essential detail required for the effective and efficient operation of the scheme. It is intended, at least for the initial use of the scheme’s operation, that the board would meet on a regular basis, and at least monthly. The board is not an agency within the meaning of the Financial Management Act. However, this bill will require it to comply with all normal accounting and reporting arrangements, including the preparation and submission of annual reports detailing operations and finances of the scheme.
The scheme registrar will be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the scheme and is, therefore, a critical position. For this reason, it will be a statutory appointment within the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. Staff may be employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and made available by the Commissioner for Public Employment. The registrar will have the power to inspect construction sites and to seek information from employers and workers. When performing the registrar’s inspectorial functions, he/she will be required to carry an authorised identity card. The registrar will also have the power to delegate any of his/her functions, including the duties of inspector. The Commission for Public Employment is currently responsible for the Northern Territory Long Service Leave Act and for the Public Holidays Act, both of which apply to private sector employment. It is for this reason that the registrar is based in the Office of the Commissioner. This may change as the scheme develops and matures.
An essential element of the bill is that it provides the mechanism for the minister to enter into a reciprocal agreement with the ministers responsible for the administration of such schemes in all states and the Australia Capital Territory. It is important to note that the reciprocal agreement does not actually transfer entitlements across or between jurisdictions; it simply provides for recognition of service and payment of benefits according to the different jurisdictional provisions. For example, a worker who completes a total of 10 years service of which two years was in the Northern Territory, three years was in the ACT, and an earlier five years in Tasmania, would receive a total benefit calculated by the board having regard to the monies paid by the two interstate schemes to the NT scheme, and the periods of employment.
The final division of this part of the bill goes to the issues of the board’s and scheme staffs’ protection from liability. This provision is similar to most legislation of this nature. The bill also requires the minister to appoint an actuary to review the scheme’s administration and financial state at commencement of the scheme and every three years thereafter.
The last part of the bill, Part 6, covers transitional provisions at commencement of the scheme. During the consultation phase of this project, some employer organisations were firmly of the view that no retrospectivity provisions should apply at the schemes commencement. However, the government is strongly of the view that this would disadvantage current employees, particularly those with significant service with the same employer. Consequently, the bill makes provision for employers to pay to the board an amount that equates to the employee’s previous service. It also allows employers to pay an amount to the scheme and to transfer prior service to the scheme in certain circumstances. Where an employee has already accrued an entitlement to long service leave under the existing Northern Territory Long Service Leave Act, that entitlement would not be affected by the introduction of this bill.
This scheme will place Northern Territory construction industry workers on an equal footing with their counterparts in other states, and greatly assist in the recruitment and retention of skilled workers to the Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
This bill seeks to amend the Police Administration Act in a number of ways. Primarily, this bill will put into place a new regime dealing with claims of alleged tortious acts by members of the police force. As members will recall in the October sittings, I intimated that I would be looking to address the concerns in the member for Macdonnell’s bill (Serial 213) in these sittings. I am pleased to say that we have improved on, and achieved the objectives, of what the member for Macdonnell was attempting to do. However, this bill does more than introduce a new vicarious liability scheme; it also makes several other substantial reforms. In a nutshell these amendments will:
I will deal with each amendment in turn.
In relation to the amendments to section 163 of the act, it is intended to repeal and replace the scheme for claims against police. The proposed scheme is substantially the same as the Police Legislation Amendments (Civil Liability) Act 2003 (New South Wales), which commenced on 1 January 2004.
As I noted in my response to the House on 5 October 2004, this is a complex area of law. It is made more difficult by the fact that members of the police force are not ‘employees’. Vicarious liability is a common law doctrine relating to the issue of an employer’s liability for the actions of their employee. Generally speaking, the Crown cannot be vicariously liable for the actions of an independent statutory office holder such as a member of police. It is for this reason that section 163(1) of the act makes the Crown liable for a member’s torts in the like manner as a master is liable for the torts committed by a servant in the course of employment.
Another problem is the interaction of sections 162 and 163 of the act. Section 162 provides a limitation period of two months in which a plaintiff has to commence an action against a member for anything ‘done in pursuant of this act … and not otherwise’. Unfortunately, the court is not in the position to be able to make a determination about the limitation, or the vicarious liability of the Crown, until all evidence has been presented to it. This places the member in the position of being weighed down with an action that may have little prospect of success. This is an unfair burden on the member. The courts have interpreted section 162 as meaning the two-month limitation period only applies where the member acted in good faith in the course of the member’s duties. Where the member’s actions were serious or wilful, the two-month limitation period does not apply. If the member’s conduct is in this category, then not only will the limitation not apply, but the Crown will not be liable.
I will briefly discuss the existing vicarious liability provision. As it currently stands, a member seeking to sue a member of the police force for an alleged tort may sue the member personally. There is no requirement to join the Crown to the proceedings. Section 163(3) enshrines the public policy view that the Crown is not liable to pay damages in the nature of punitive damages, as the court will only award those damages to punish or deter the defendant for their conduct. The experience in the Territory is that, in most cases where the court fines for the plaintiff, the court has not awarded punitive damages. In those instances, the Crown meets the payments of the damages, even though the Crown may not have been party to the claim. However, there have been two cases where punitive damages were awarded against police.
The threat of action and the stress of ongoing court proceedings places an undeserved heavy toll on members whose job of policing has its own inherent difficulties. We intend rectifying this by ensuring a plaintiff cannot directly sue a police officer for a police tort claim. A police tort claim means a claim for damages, including punitive damages for a tort allegedly committed by a member or a former member in the performance or purported performance of their duty. This does not, of course, prevent claims against police officers alleging that the negligence occurred other than in the course of their duties.
Under the proposed scheme, a person can only initiate a claim in the name of the Territory and the Territory must, as a result, make an election whether or not it would be vicariously liable in any award of damages. If the Territory denies it would be liable, then the court must make any orders it considers appropriate to enable the plaintiff to amend the existing originating process in joining the member. The plaintiff only has two months from the date of the order to amend the originating process, otherwise the plaintiff will be barred from doing so.
In relation to a claim of punitive damages, the plaintiff is unable to seek this remedy without the leave of the court. If the court grants leave, the plaintiff may join the member.
The proposed section 148G provides that the vicarious liability provisions do not affect a person’s rights they would otherwise have but for these provisions.
These amendments will apply to a tort committed or allegedly committed prior to the commencement of the new scheme, but only where any legal proceedings have not commenced at the time of commencement of the legislation.
The new scheme is intended to regulate the manner in which a person can sue a member of the police force. By virtue of their powers, members of the police force may be required to perform functions or exercise powers under other acts, often in the capacity of a public official. There are a large number of acts that give police additional powers or functions. Some of those acts also contain protection from liability provisions that apply both to employees of the relevant agency and police alike. Unfortunately, not all the protection from liability provisions are identical, so each provision needs to be addressed based on the protection it provides.
It would seem, however, that the provisions fall in three categories. They include:
Ancillary amendments have been made to ensure the new regime does not unintentionally affect existing rights, liabilities or procedures.
Finally, I note that the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act 2003 will apply in relation to claims for personal injuries. The amendments in this bill do not affect the operation of that act with respect to personal injuries caused by police officers.
I now turn to the extension of the Commissioner of Police’s power of delegation. Section 14(3) of the act provides the Commissioner of Police with the power of delegation. However, it is limited to delegations under this act. As a result, unless another statute conferring powers or functions on the commissioner contains a similar power of delegation, the power may not exist. Administrative convenience and workability have long been recognised as compelling reasons for the power to delegate, as parliament did not intend the commissioner to exercise all of his powers and functions personally. This amendment is twofold: first, it gives the commissioner the power to delegate to a member any of his powers or functions under any act and, second, it recognises that professional civilian employees perform functions that would administratively benefit from a delegation of power.
In the second instance, there is no power for the commissioner when he is performing his functions as the chief executive officer to delegate to a civilian employee. Civilian employees undertake a wide range of activities within the police force and, in some cases, have the control or management of members; for instance, in the field of forensic services. Alternatively, an employee may be administering functions pursuant to the laws of another act, such as the Information Act. In either case, the commissioner or the chief executive officer, as the case may be, is unable to delegate any of his powers. This amendment will enable him to do so. In considering whether to exercise the powers of delegation, the commissioner or the CEO must be satisfied the person has the appropriate qualifications or experience to exercise the power or perform the function. The commissioner is unable to delegate to a civilian employee any operational powers or functions.
In some cases, the Commissioner of Police is required to exercise this power personally; for example, under section 40 of the Associations Act. There may be other similar instances, and the Department of Justice will undertake a review of its acts to ascertain whether this is the case.
In relation to search warrant powers, these amendments are only intended to bring consistency between the various types of warrants that may be issued. They are necessary to afford protection to those members of the police force who are authorised to search and seize, or assist in the search and seizure under a warrant. Because the common law, rightly, jealously guards an individual’s rights and privacy, those rights need to be balanced by a statute against the public interest in having an effective criminal justice system. To do this, courts strictly construe any exercise of power under the execution of a warrant. Anomalies or uncertainties in interpreting the width of the power may potentially lead to an action against the member in certain circumstances.
Where a warrant is issued under section 120B of the act authorising the search for dangerous drugs, the authorised member may stop and detain a person, ship or vehicle for the purposes of this search. Whilst being detained, the person is in lawful custody. No such power exists on the issue of a warrant to search for things relating to a general offence under section 117.
In addition, these amendments will allow a member of the police force to apply for a warrant to stop and search a train. They will also include an aircraft under section 117(2) of the act. Equally, police will be given the power to seize any chemical precursor and drug manufacturing equipment for the purposes of section 120BA. The term ‘precursor’ has the same meaning it has in the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Ancillary amendments have also been made to make the relevant provisions to give them more plain English reading.
I now turn to the amendments to the probationary period of a member with the rank of constable. Section 16A, in conjunction with section 16(1A), creates an obligatory probation period of two years. In some cases, this inflexible period leads to inequities, especially when the member joins the police force with special skills and experience gained from a police force from another jurisdiction. This amendment will allow the Commissioner of Police to administer the discretion equitably in all cases. There will be no minimum period of probation.
The final amendment gives police the power to search any person they take into lawful custody. Currently, section 114 of the act restricts police to searching persons who are in lawful custody on a charge of an offence. Police take people into lawful custody for a range of reasons. For example, a person may be held to enable police to question the person or undertake an investigation or further investigations. The lack of a power to search any person taken into lawful custody, or who initially attends the watch-house, poses a risk to the police, other inmates and to the person themselves. This amendment will enable police to perform a non-intimate search on that person.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to make it an offence, with an appropriately high penalty, to assault, obstruct or hinder a person who is providing assistance to a third party. It has been long recognised in all states that police officers must be free to perform their duties without being obstructed or hindered and, certainly, without being subjected to assaults. Our community recognises the excellent and often challenging work done by the police force, and our legislation reflects this by providing severe penalties for those who commit assaults on, or obstruct the work of, the police.
It is somewhat anomalous that the same protection is not afforded to others in our community who perform important tasks to save, protect, care for, or go to the help of others, frequently in an emergency setting. It is, of course, already an offence to assault another person, but this amendment is much broader in its application. It does not limit itself to providing legislative protection to certain groups of people at the expense of excluding other groups.
This bill provides that it is an offence if a person assaults, obstructs, or hinders another person who is providing rescue, resuscitation, medical treatment, first aid or succour of any kind to a third person. One group of workers who clearly fall into this category are ambulance officers. Ambulance officers provide an excellent service for Territorians, in often very difficult and emotionally-charged circumstances. It is hard to imagine why anyone would deliberately obstruct or hinder an ambulance officer who is going to provide help to an injured or sick person. However, sadly, it does happen and such incidents are now not uncommon.
It was only a few months ago, in Darwin, that two ambulance officers went to the assistance of a sick person who needed care and attention, and the ambulance officers were themselves set upon by hooligans, forcing the ambulance officers to flee, as they feared for their own safety. Consequently, they had to leave the injured person without help, and thus placed that person’s physical health and wellbeing in jeopardy. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable to most members of our law-abiding community, and this bill provides appropriate penalties for such cowardly and abhorrent behaviour.
The bill provides that if a person assaults, obstructs, or hinders another person who is providing assistance to another, the person is liable to a term of imprisonment for five years. If the person receiving assistance consequently suffers harm, or their life is endangered by the action, the penalty is increased from five years to seven years. The bill also protects a person who is taking action to prevent injury to a third person who is in immediate risk of being injured. An example would be where a member of the community is assaulted while trying to protect a third person from injury, such as holding back a distraught bystander on the scene of an accident.
The bill extends protection also to firefighters who may be assaulted while attempting to put out a fire. The members and volunteers of the NT Emergency Services, and the volunteers and auxiliaries of the NT Fire and Rescue Service, do an extremely demanding and dangerous job, and it is appropriate that there are severe penalties for persons who assault or hinder firefighters who are engaged in putting out fires to save the property and, possibly, lives of others.
It is sad that we need such legislation in today’s society. I am aware that the member for Macdonnell recently introduced two bills which provided increased penalties for persons who assaulted emergency workers. Whilst I commend the honourable member for trying to protect emergency workers, I believe that the amendment should not have been limited to just emergency workers. It is important to provide the same protection for everyone, whether they be ambulance officers, a firefighter, or a member of the community who goes to the aid of a person in need - they are all good Samaritans and deserve the same level of protection. This bill is really about providing a protective hand to those Territorians who give a helping hand.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members in this semi-darkness in which I stand.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill amends the Building Act to address three distinct matters that are contained in three separate parts of the bill. The first is to clarify the powers of the Building Practitioners Board; the second is the validating provision to validate, retrospectively, all action taken in relation to declared building areas since 1993; and the third is to legislate to address an impasse on certificates of occupancy for works done prior to 1993. The first matter follows a decision of the Supreme Court; the second matter follows a decision of the Magistrates Court; and the third matter follows legal advice on liability and the legality of current practice.
These matters address existing provisions and are in contrast of the Building Amendment Bill that I introduced into the House on 14 October, which covered the new initiatives of registration of residential builders and home warranty insurance.
I will now address the three separate matters in turn. As Part 1 of the bill deals with preliminary matters, the three matters are described in Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 of the bill. I will deal firstly with the powers of the Building Practitioners Board. First, I will address the matter contained within Part 2 of the bill that deals with, as I have said, the powers of the Building Practitioners Board and the Director of Building Control.
The Northern Territory Building Act 1993 established a building control system that is supported by private sector certification, with registered building practitioners having the major certification role and responsibility within the building control process. In recognition of the important role that private building practitioners have in the private certification system, the Building Practitioners Board was established under the act to register and monitor the performance of all building practitioners, and take appropriate disciplinary action where individuals do not meet their legislative responsibilities. The board is comprised of members appointed by the minister having experience in the building industry or matters connected with the building industry. The minister may also appoint the Director of Building Control to the board. The purpose of the board is to ensure that the qualifications and performance of building practitioners is commensurate with their responsibility under the Building Act to the Northern Territory community and government.
The introduction of the Building Act 1993 changed the government’s role from one of operational administration of building control, to one of supporting private sector professionals in their achievement of appropriate building standards.
The Building Advisory Services Branch of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, and Environment audits the performance of building practitioners in the building control system to ensure that industry participants fulfil their obligations under the Building Act 1993. As a result of this auditing, the board has held a number of disciplinary hearings in relation to the performance of building practitioners.
In January 2002, the performance of a building practitioner was referred to the board and an inquiry was commenced to ascertain whether breaches had been committed under the Building Act 1993. Based on legal advice, three members of the board were selected to make up an independent inquiry panel. The inquiry panel commenced proceedings on 26 August 2002. On 2 September 2002, the counsel for the building practitioner applied for and was granted an interim injunction in the Supreme Court preventing the panel continuing the inquiry. The grounds for the injunction were apprehended bias, lack of jurisdiction as the board delegated its disciplinary powers to three members of the board, and a breach of the principle of procedural fairness.
On 26 August 2003, the Supreme Court deemed that the disciplinary inquiry into the conduct of the building practitioner was invalid and null and void. The reasons given were twofold; namely, that the board bifurcated and delegated its disciplinary powers – and I am quoting here - ‘… to only some of their number in the absence of an express power to do so’, and that a meeting of the Director of Building Control with the inquiring panel in the absence of the parties created a reasonable apprehension that the panel might not bring an impartial or unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the allegations against the plaintiff.
The decision has brought into question the ability of the board to effectively monitor and discipline building practitioners. Given that any future action taken under the current legislative provisions could be threatened by similar applications in the Supreme Court, legislative amendments are required to ensure that the building practitioners can be held accountable. While audits are consistent with the object of the act, legal advice is that there is no express power in the Building Act for anybody to conduct them. Therefore, failure to comply with any audit requests does not carry any statutory sanction. The functions and powers of the Director of Building Control are to be expanded to cover the auditing and investigation of complaints of building practitioners and building works. The director is to be given power to prosecute matters of conduct and performance of building practitioners to the board.
Traditionally, the director has been appointed as a member of the board, as allowed under the act. However, the director has declared an interest and not participated in the deliberative phase when bringing these matters as a result of audits to the board. Nevertheless, the director’s membership on the board can, and has, created a reasonable apprehension that the board may not bring an impartial or unprejudiced mind to any issue brought before the board by the director. Accordingly, the bill states that the director is not to be appointed to the board.
The composition and powers of the board in relation to the conduct of inquires are to be better defined. Presently, the board performs two roles in that it produces the evidence against the practitioner and judges that evidence against the evidence produced by the practitioner. It is the prosecutor and judge. This dual role has the potential for bias. Therefore, it is proposed to restructure the role of the board so that it acts only in the capacity of adjudicator. The board is to be given the power to form an inquiry panel from its membership appropriate to the category of practitioner under inquiry.
It is proposed to expand the membership of the board to include at least one person with legal qualifications. This person could be appointed as a standing chair of the board’s inquiry panel to ensure that principles of law and procedural fairness are followed. Under the provisions of the bill, the board, through an inquiry panel, may reprimand a person; require a person to pay the costs of, or incidental to, the inquiry; require a person to give an undertaking not to do a specified thing; impose a fine; suspend registration for not more than three years; or cancel registration. If an inquiry makes a finding favourable to a registered building practitioner, the board may pay that practitioner’s reasonable costs of, and incidental to, the inquiry.
I will now address the second matter which relates to the validation of declared building areas which is contained in Part 3 of the bill. The Northern Territory Building Act 1993 established a building control system that is based on its application to the parts of the Territory commonly referred to as declared building areas. Section 6.2 of the Building Act 1993 states:
Parts 4 to 13 of the Building Act 1993 cover building certifiers, building standards, building permits, commencement, inspection and certification of building work, occupancy permits, protection of adjoining property, enforcement of safety and building standards, building appeals, general enforcement provisions, and liability.
On 29 September 1993, the Government Gazette published an instrument signed by the then minister. This was part of the commencement of operation of the Building Act 1993 for the purposes of section 6(2) of the act. This instrument stated that all provisions of Parts 4 to 13 apply to parts of the Territory designated in the Schedule and, I quote:
During 2003, the Director of Building Control initiated a prosecution action in the Magistrates Court in respect of an illegal building at Wagait Beach, Mandorah. On 19 March 2004, the magistrate found that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the property in question at Mandorah fell within the jurisdiction of the act. This was because the prosecution had to prove that the relevant map was held in the physical office of the Director of Building Control on 1 September 1993. Evidence was, therefore, needed from a witness who actually saw the map in the office of the Director of Building control on that date. Due to the time that had elapsed and the staff changes, the prosecution could not produce evidence required and, accordingly, the prosecution failed and the charges were dismissed. In practice, there was and is a widespread understanding by building practitioners in those parts of the Northern Territory that are declared building areas. The case was lost on a technicality and the magistrate’s decision brought into question the validity of the 1993 declaration of building control areas.
Given the ramifications of the decision, legal advice was sought on whether there may be grounds for appeal against the decision of the magistrate. Advice was received to the effect that an appeal was not likely to succeed. A legislative response was, therefore, chosen to put the matter beyond doubt. On legal advice, a new notice pursuant to section 62 was published in Gazette S29 on 16 September 2004. This notice included full technical descriptions and maps, and was signed by the minister. An erratum to correct typographical errors and a corrigendum to correct a reference in the technical descriptions were gazetted on 17 November 2004.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the act so that the recent notices in the Gazette are deemed to have been in effect from 1 September 1993. It has retrospective effect and validates all actions taken under Parts 4 to 13 of the act. I stress that this action makes no change to the declared building areas as they were commonly understood in 1993.
In conclusion, the matter of certificates of occupancy issued for works approved before 1993 is contained in Part 4 of the bill. The Building Act 1993 repealed the Building Act 1983. However, the effect of transitional provisions contained in section 170 of the Building Act 1993 is that the Building Act 1983 continues to have general application in respect of building works completed between its commencement and its repeal.
In particular, section 40 of the Building Act 1983, obliges the Director of Building Control to issue a prescribed certificate, ‘a certificate of occupancy’, certifying that the building work has been completed in accordance with the building permit, and that the building, as erected or altered, is fit for occupation. Section 41 of that same act makes occupation of any building illegal unless there is a certificate in respect of that building. It should be noted at this stage that there is no legal requirement to have a certificate of occupancy to sell a property.
Since the introduction of private certification in September 1993, the policy and practice has been to issue certificates of occupancy for all building works constructed prior to that date, subject to certain conditions. The building works included those covered by a building permit previously issued by the Northern Territory government, or other works such as those undertaken by a government body, or done before the subject land was included in a declared building area. In all cases, owners have been obliged to provide certification from private building practitioners that all works - whether engineering, glazing, termite treatment and so on - complied with the requirements of the day. The policy extended to building works approved prior to the commencement of the Building Act 1983. Such building works were regulated by the Building Ordinance 1955.
The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment has encountered many practical problems in implementing this policy. Invariably, over the years, unapproved works have occurred on a subject property. The records are generally incomplete. Legal complexities abound. Many contracts of sale are made subject to a certificate of occupancy and, as the settlement date looms, the anxiety rises - the government is accused of jeopardising the sale.
Increasingly, the government is being held liable for a certificate of occupancy, with owners seeking compensation, if and when structural problems have been found with the building subsequent to the issue of the certificate of occupancy. In recognition of the inherent weaknesses of the current policy, a position was taken in 2001 to no longer issue certificates of occupancy for building works which did not require a building permit at the time of construction. This covered works undertaken by the Commonwealth government, and any building works undertaken before the subject land was declared to be in a building area. In these cases, the buildings were legal at the time of construction and, because of existing use rights, the building works remain so.
Given the concerns with the practice of issuing certificates for the many thousands of pre-1993 works that were not finalised with the issue of a certificate of occupancy, further legal advice was sought. The advice was that, in respect of building works completed under the Building Ordinance 1955, there is no power to issue certificates of occupancy. Further, the advice stated that the Director of Building Control must satisfy himself that the building works completed under the Building Act 1983 comply in all respects with the requirements of today’s standards and not those at the time of construction.
In light of this advice, a further change of policy was proposed in late 2003. Given the number of perceived practical problems in implementing the policy, and public concerns, I instructed the department to undertake further consultation with industry to further consider the proposed policy and other options. Following a number of meetings with key industry representatives, agreement was reached in September 2004 for legislated change. Hence, this bill is now before the House.
The main provision in the bill is to remove the legal requirement for old building work to have a certificate of occupancy. This recognises the reality with the passage of time of up to 49 years. It is very difficult to determine the actual structural construction due to non-existent or incomplete records, or inaccessible building components.
There are two matters that should be addressed in the purchase of a building. First is its legal status. The bill will allow a building certifier to advise a client that a pre-1993 building is legal if a building permit was required at the time of construction, a permit was issued, and an inspection reveals that the building is substantially in accordance with the permit. The second matter is the current state of the repair of the building. This is a consumer consideration that is best addressed by a building condition report from a building practitioner. This is not a matter for regulation, but a matter of consumer awareness and choice.
An education program is proposed for the real estate industry and the public on the importance of the two matters referred to above; namely, the legal status of a building and its current state of repair.
In conclusion, this bill will resolve many of the operational concerns with the Building Act as it stands at present. The introduction of private certification in 1993 was an enormous reform of the building control regime. The Northern Territory was the first jurisdiction to go down this road, to the extent of placing complete responsibility of issuing permits with the private sector. This left the public sector with the role of regulating the standards required for building works, registering building practitioners, auditing their performance, and keeping the official records of buildings.
This bill clarifies the powers of the Building Practitioners Board in ensuring the performance of the private sector practitioners, validates the buildings areas intended in 1993, and addresses the problems associated with works approved before 1993.
However, there are still more amendments to come. I foreshadow further housekeeping amendments to the Building Act in 2005. There were a number of general operational matters raised in the discussion paper on the review of the Building Act that was the subject of consultation last year. These matters have not been included in the two bills to date, as they have a lower priority. However, it is my intention to address them in a further bill next year. I will take the opportunity, at that time, to change the penalty system in the act from dollars to penalty units, and review the level, as there is evidence that the current penalty provisions are far too low.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that this bill be now read a second time.
The bill amends the Planning Act to address deficiencies in the current planning processes. Some of these deficiencies were identified by the member for Fannie Bay, as the shadow minister for planning, during the debate on the Planning Bill 1999. In October 2001, my predecessor, the member for Casuarina, announced that the review of the Planning Act would be undertaken in line with the government’s election commitment.
A discussion paper on the review of the Planning Act was released on 30 March 2003, and public submissions were invited. Submissions were to be received by 31 May 2003. Concurrently, a revised draft for the consolidated Northern Territory Planning Scheme - this time with zoning maps in the new format - was also released for public comment. During the public comment period, departmental officers conducted a series of consultative sessions with local government and community and industry groups regarding the draft Planning Scheme and the Planning Act review. Subsequently, at the request of residents’ action groups, workshops were facilitated by a consultant on the review of the act and the scheme. These were held in Darwin on 6 and 17 September 2003, with action groups and departmental staff participating. In addition, I held a further workshop with the groups on 17 July 2004.
Twenty-seven submissions on the review of the Planning Act were received from individuals, community groups, businesses and professional organisations, local government and Northern Territory government agencies. The submissions, generally, addressed issues that have been canvassed in the discussion paper. Some matters outside the scope of the discussion paper were also raised. The public response to the discussion paper has been positive overall, although it is inevitable that, as with a matter of such high public interest such as planning, there will be differing views on specific issues.
The government is committed to the making of the new Planning Scheme to provide the community, industry and government with user-friendly integrated and consistent planning framework, within which projects can be proposed and determined with confidence. After 30 years of an evolving, fragmented planning regime, we owe this significant overhaul to the next generation to enable it to better manage the coming era of development in the Territory.
Much work has been done on the proposed scheme over many years, and it is now at the statutory exhibition stage. Legal advice is that the proposed Northern Territory Planning Scheme would be better facilitated if amendments to the relevant provisions of the act were made first. For that reason, the statutory exhibition of the new planning scheme will be held over until the act is amended.
I now wish to outline the more significant matters that are contained in this bill. In order to give a more complete picture of the government’s intentions, I will refer to details that will be contained in the consequential regulations where appropriate. In order to set the scene, the bill proposes a new proposed section 2A of the Planning Act, on the objects of the act and I quote:
‘Amenity’ is a word in common usage within the discipline of land use planning and development. Whilst to date its meaning has been the common meaning found in dictionaries and court decisions, some submissions support defining it within the act. A definition of an amenity is included in the bill. In relation to a locality or building, amenity means any quality, condition or factor that makes or contributes to making the locality or building harmonious, pleasant or enjoyable.
The minister’s current power to direct the Development Consent Authority in relation to the determination of a particular development is to be removed. The power to give a general direction or specific direction other than as to the determination of an application will remain. For example, the minister will be able to direct on process such as readvertising an application or calling a special meeting to consider a particular matter.
In place of the power to direct the Development Consent Authority on the determination of a particular application, the minister will be empowered to ‘call out’ an application before the authority and determine it as a consent authority. A determination by the minister under ‘call out’ provisions will not be subject to appeal. This is seen to be more transparent in that the Development Consent Authority, the applicant, and those who make submissions will be advised that the minister will be the consent authority with minister’s signature on the development permit as a permanent record.
The bill removes the current statutory distinction between land use objectives, development provisions and incorporated documents as separate elements of the Planning Scheme. This amendment, in particular, will facilitate the making of a new Planning Scheme. Individual clauses of the Planning Scheme will be worded to make clear whether they are statements of planning policy, development controls or design criteria. They will also make it clear whether they are binding, matters that can be waived, or matters to which the consent authority must have regard.
The Planning Scheme will speak for itself. At present, the Planning Act and any of the many documents in the Planning Scheme must be read together to ensure the correct interpretation. The Planning Scheme will include general and local statements of land use, planning policy, provisions for the use or development of land, or assessment criteria to assist the consent authority in assessing development applications. The scheme will be able to ‘call up’ external documents - for example, guidelines for land clearing, excavation and fill - and refer to other documents as background material. I emphasise that it will be able to address issues at the Territory, regional and local levels.
The bill amends the act to permit the making of a separate Planning Scheme for a part of the Territory where unique circumstances would make it inappropriate for the broader scheme to apply. The Northern Territory Planning Scheme will be default scheme. The bill introduces a simplified mechanism for dealing with minor additions or alternations to a building or development with existing non-conforming use rights. A more expedient alternative to the only current means of using an exceptional development permit is necessary to avoid the anomalous situation that presently exists and was not foreseen in the development of the current act.
Matters to be taken into account by the Development Consent Authority when assessing a development application described in section 51 are to be expanded to include crime prevention, design principles, water safety, and access for people with disabilities.
The bill provides for electronic lodgement of development applications. Electronic technology will, obviously, expand more and more into the world of business and government. I note that the National Development Assessment Forum, established by the Commonwealth, state and territory planning ministers, of which the Northern Territory is a member, is developing protocols to facilitate just such initiatives. The proposed amendment to the act anticipates these emerging uses of technology.
The bill provides that, where a land use subject to consent is discontinued for more than 12 months, the consent will automatically lapse. However, the Development Consent Authority will be empowered to extend the period beyond 12 months in a particular case if a request is justified. This provision mirrors the existing provision for non-conforming uses and is designed to allow the consent authority to review the appropriateness and conditions of a previous use, given any change in circumstances.
The bill allows a local authority to initiate the process of nominating a person to fill a vacancy on the Development Consent Authority rather than having to wait for a request by the minister to do so. It also removes the need for an alternate to be reappointed where a principle member ceases to hold office in mid-term. The alternate will be an alternate for a position rather than for a particular person. These provisions are designed to simplify administration.
Determinations by the minister, acting as consent authority for administrative convenience for the remote areas of the Territory, will now be subject to the same appeal rights as for the determinations by the Development Consent Authority. This is a matter of equity for people in remote areas who should not be discriminated against on the grounds of who is the consent authority. However, there will be a separate provision under which the minister could make a determination in a particular case that will not be appealable. This provision is the equivalent of the ‘call out’ provisions described earlier.
The bill specifies that prosecution for a breach of the act or the Planning Scheme may be initiated within two years from the time the breach first came to notice. At present, it is only six months, and such a tight time frame has proven to be difficult to administer, particularly in relation to offences such as land clearing and other matters that can be time-consuming when bringing an action. The present time frames provide little opportunity for a negotiated outcome as an alternative to prosecution. It should be a consideration of government that a proper planning outcome is achieved rather than just taking punitive action.
The clearing of native vegetation, whether contrary to the Northern Territory Planning Scheme or the conditions of a development permit, is to be regarded as a more serious offence. Unlike many other land use offences, once the clearing has taken place it is difficult to make good, and revegetation will take years to achieve the original amenity. Clearing offences will be specific offences and will not be prosecuted under the general offence provisions of section 75. The act will provide that the owner of the land, the occupier of the land, and the person apparently in charge of the clearing activity, can each be held accountable.
Statutory provision is proposed for the minister to appoint advisory committees and set their terms of reference. At present, there is power for the Development Consent Authority to establish an advisory committee, but not for a committee to advise the minister. Obviously, the minister can administratively seek advice from any source, but there is merit in having a committee established by statute with its purpose, membership and terms of reference being clearly stated under the act. The first committee to be established under this power will be the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. The committee exists at present as an administrative entity but, after the amendments have been made, I will re-establish it under the appropriate section of the Planning Act.
The act is to be amended to specify that the Lands and Mining Tribunal may override the decision of the consent authority on appeal only where the tribunal is satisfied that the consent authority’s decision would produce a planning outcome that would be manifestly wrong. The emphasis must be on the planning merit of a case and not legal technicalities. The amendment to the act will also allow the tribunal to receive independent land use planning advice to ensure good planning outcomes.
A key commitment by government was to introduce limited rights of third party appeal. These are appeals by parties other than the applicant, such as neighbours. The bill provides for such rights. During the consultation period, there was support for the introduction of limited rights of third party appeal. However, some community groups are seeking very few limitations on these rights and will be disappointed by the limitations proposed by government. Others said that, if third party appeals are to be introduced, they should be severely restricted. Concern has been expressed by industry regarding uncertainty, delays and additional costs that can be associated with third party appeals. The government is mindful of the need to strike a balance between the legitimate expectation of developers and landowners on one hand and, on the other hand, the expectations of people for preserving and enhancing their living environment.
Having regard to the need for this balancing of interests, it was evidenced that unrestricted rights of appeal would be just as inequitable as a complete absence of such a right. Having regard to the decade’s long extensive experience of other jurisdictions, the government has decided that the right of third party appeals should be focussed on the residential zones. People decide to live in a particular location in a residential zone and make investments accordingly. These people will now have a right to appeal a decision to allow development that would unduly impact on their residential amenity of choice.
The proposed restrictions on third party appeals are as follows. There will be no third party right of appeal in circumstances where the applicant cannot appeal. Generally, this is where a minister has called out a matter from the Development Consent Authority and determined it as consent authority and for exceptional development permits. Third party appeals may not be for reasons of commercial competition. Only a person who has made a written submission to the consent authority may appeal. This is to encourage participation in the process earlier rather than later. Only a person, as defined in the Interpretation Act - namely a real person, a body corporate or a body politic - may appeal. In other words, the appellants must be legal entities and be able to carry the legal consequences of their actions. Costs may be awarded against a person whose appeal is determined by the Lands and Mining Tribunal to be frivolous or vexatious, or for reasons of commercial competition.
The regulations will prescribe classes of development, in respect of which there will be no right of third party appeal. Generally, appeals will not be allowed for subdivisions or consolidations. They will not be allowed for development in a non-residential zone unless it is on land that interfaces with residential zoned land. Thus, development in the Darwin CBD and Winnellie will not be subject to third party appeals, but development in a local shopping centre could be. Third party appeals will be allowed for residential developments over two storeys in height, such as the controversial unit development in Ostermann Street. Non-residential uses in a residential zone, such as child-care facilities and home occupations where the use does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Planning Scheme, will be appealable.
I now wish to make some comments on strategic planning. At least one public submission observed that the Planning Act does not refer in any material way to the activity or process of strategic planning. While this is true, it is also true that there is no need for it to do so as the strategic planning function, as an activity of government, is a foundation of the Planning Scheme. Outcomes of strategic planning will form the basis of amendments to the Planning Scheme. The act ensures that amendments are open to public scrutiny and comment. In order to reinforce the importance and nature of strategic planning, clause 2A of the bill does refer to the activity of strategic planning as one of the means by which the objects of the Planning Act can be achieved.
There were other matters that came out of the review that I intend to implement, but which do not require amendment to the act. For example, notification of some applications in the newspaper will include a map where this is appropriate. The assessment reports from the action officers to the Development Consent Authority will be available to the public at the hearing. A higher standard of development application will be enforced.
I wish to thank all those who participated in review of the Planning Act since April last year. In particular, I thank local government, community groups, industry, and individuals who have taken the time to read the material, attend public meetings and workshops, and make submissions. I must acknowledge the work of officers in my department in bringing this review to fruition.
Whilst the review has taken longer than originally anticipated, it spanned a change of ministers, and I have given it the time necessary to ensure that I am well aware of the concerns being expressed by all parties. Many of these concerns are conflicting and competing, which reflects the very nature of land use planning and development. It is the role of government to find the balance, and I believe we have in the proposed changes I have outlined. The Planning Act is central in ensuring the Territory is managed in a sustainable manner and that development is orderly and appropriate for the social and economic wellbeing of all, including future generations.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill 2004 (Serial 270) and the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 271):
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
I am delighted to present these bills to parliament. Their purpose is to introduce into the Northern Territory a comprehensive and systematic approach to the prevention and treatment of volatile substance abuse. The clear intent of these bills is that intervention is to take place where volatile substance abuse in occurring.
In the Northern Territory, substance abuse is, undoubtedly, one of the biggest barriers to achieving outcomes in health, education and community safety. The unacceptable levels of harm being suffered, particularly by young people who abuse volatile solvents, is well known. The Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community recently released its report Petrol Sniffing in Remote Territory Communities. The report detailed the unacceptably high levels of harm associated with the abuse of volatile substances - harm to the individual who abuses these substances, their families, and to their communities. The report detailed that some 30 remote communities were particularly affected and that there were an estimated 350 chronic sniffers. It particularly highlighted the circumstances of 15 young people from Central Australia who suffered permanent brain damage. The financial costs of looking after people in those circumstances – some $150 000 per year – is an additional and potentially avoidable burden on the community.
The committee received almost 20 submissions about volatile substances. It visited a number of communities and met with agencies and people who are active in the prevention and treatment of volatile substance abuse. The committee’s findings and recommendations were informed by this consultative process. These bills have been a long time in the making. On 22 March 2003, acting in my then capacity as chair of the select committee, I submitted a foreword to the committees interim report. In that foreword I said:
From there, we made tackling substance abuse one of the six key priorities in Building Healthier Communities, our framework to providing the best in health and community services. In Building Healthier Communities, a key action item was to explore options of legislative reform to combat petrol sniffing.
Building Healthier Communities was launched at the beginning of this year. In May this year, I presented a report to parliament that outlined the policy position of the government, and the intention of passing legislation along the lines of these bills I am introducing today.
In both my time as the chair of the substance abuse committee and now as the relevant responsible minister, I have visited many communities and met with many organisation to discuss the scourge of petrol sniffing. The crisis and dysfunctions caused by petrol sniffing is so confronting and profound that, regardless of the scale of the problem at any particular community, it is almost always the No 1 priority issue.
Petrol sniffing undermines and offends communal pride like few other negative behaviours. Communities regard volatile substance abuse as something which they themselves must try to address. Community elders, elected representatives, and community members generally have to remain actively involved in setting the standards which will apply in the place where they live. Such standards will need to involve responses to outbreak of abuse, and plans for working collectively to support those people affected by volatile substance abuse problems - the sniffers, their families and their communities. The desire by communities to try to tackle the volatile substance abuse at a local level does not mean that the communities either wish, or have the resources, to effectively meet that challenge in isolation without support. The greater successes will be achieved by communities collaboratively with non-government and government service agencies.
These bills alone will not adequately address the problem. Legislation needs to be complemented by a range of other complementary programs and services. The government is developing such programs and services, and we have announced an additional $10m over the next five years to fund them.
There are other initiatives outside the scope of these bills that can go a long way towards to reducing volatile substance abuse. One of these is increasing the availability of fuel that does not have the same intoxicating effects as standard fuel. Such fuel is available, and we will be working to increase its availability while limiting the availability of intoxicating fuels in areas where volatile substance abuse occurs.
Formal mechanisms already exist where individuals who contemporaneously abuse volatile substances and committee offences are dealt with in the criminal justice system. Outside the criminal justice system, only informal processes exist to intervene where a person is at risk of harm. This legislation remedies that omission. This legislation, plus the funding package already announced, will ensure that communities, police and other agencies are empowered to intervene in various ways when people are at risk of harm through their abuse of volatile substances.
I turn now to the details of the bills. As I have stated, their clear intent is that intervention takes place when volatile substance abuse is occurring. While petrol sniffing is the primary form of volatile substance abuse, these bills also deal with other inhalants such as paint and glue. Intervention sanctioned under the bills could be immediate. A framework is established that will enable a range of actions to be taken in relation to volatile substance abuse.
Firstly, the bills provide for the seizure and disposal by police of volatile substances that are being abused. It allows the relocation to a place of safety, or to the care of responsible adults, of people abusing volatile substances who may pose a risk to the health and safety of themselves or others. Again, under the scheme set up under these bills, the apprehension of sniffers may be undertaken either by members of the Northern Territory Police or by other appropriately authorised persons such as members of the Night Patrol. These bills put in place detailed safeguards in relation to the apprehension process to ensure that the power is used appropriately and in the best interest of the person being apprehended. They provide for examination by a medical practitioner in circumstances of extended apprehension. They provide for the release of a person in protective custody into the care of a responsible adult. Alternatively, they provide for such release when the person no longer poses a risk.
These bills build on the lessons learned about prevention and treatment of volatile substance abuse, both from a Northern Territory standpoint and by reference to interstate and overseas experience. In circumstances where abuse of volatile substances is resulting in neurological, physical or mental harm, the bills allow for the making of orders requiring a long-term process of compelled attendance at assessment sessions, or participation in treatment or rehabilitation programs.
The bills also enable communities to develop enforceable management plans regulating the possession, supply and the use of volatile substances in their local area. Needs, circumstances and resources of communities differ. It is, therefore, imperative to implement a system that can accommodate such differences. To round off the comprehensive scheme provided by the bills, the offence of unlawful supply of volatile substances has been transferred from the Misuse of Drugs Act. It allows for the prosecution of persons for the unlawful supply of volatile substances, and the protection of persons who give information to the police about an offence.
The select committee made 17 recommendations for a whole-of-government approach to petrol sniffing. The recommendations included: meeting the needs of individuals in communities; immediate and long-term harm reduction intervention and treatment strategies; education and skills for all those involved in volatile solvent abuse; prevention and treatment programs in communities; ancillary community programs; data collection and reporting; drug education for remote communities; and cooperative approaches with industry. The bills are consistent with these recommendations.
The bills do not criminalise volatile substance abuse. That was the definite preference of the communities we consulted; it is also my definite preference and that of this government. Criminalising petrol sniffing would be a retrograde step. It would not address the scourge of petrol sniffing. Gaol is not the answer. We are effectively banning petrol sniffing. We are giving police, courts and the communities the power they need to intervene when sniffing occurs. As I said at the beginning of this speech, the primary intention of the bills is to allow for intervention when substance abuse is occurring.
The fact that the bills do not involve criminalisation does not translate in any way into an excuse for crime while under the influence of a volatile substance. Indeed, the bills become almost redundant when a crime has occurred because the police and the court system will proceed under the raft of other legislation and powers that currently exist, which come into play when violence, theft or property damage occurs.
This is quite complex legislation. While there is legislation in other states that does seek to address this issue, no other jurisdiction has so far embarked on the course we are now travelling. This legislation would, indeed, be simple if all it did was send people to prison for sniffing petrol – simple, but stupid. It is complex legislation and it is unique. We have had to walk the fine line between providing for intervention and protecting people’s rights.
A lot of work has gone into the drafting of these bills, and my thanks go to those involved from my department, the Department of Justice and Parliamentary Counsel who have worked so hard on working through the issues involved. It has not been easy and I acknowledge the long hours put in.
As I said, this is unique legislation. We have consulted widely and now we are introducing it. The bills will be debated early next year. I encourage those, including members opposite, who may have ideas on how it could be improved, to propose them. However, I say from the outset that we will not be considering criminalisation nor prison sentences. However, if you have ideas that fall within our policy framework, then let us know and we will seek legal advice and consider them.
While a strong and clear legislative framework is vital, the effectiveness of the provisions detailed in the draft bills are dependent on increasing the capacity of existing services through training and additional staff, and on developing new services that are accessible to those communities most affected by volatile substance abuse. Many of the proposed services will be in remote locations, and intensive support will need to be provided to ensure appropriate service standards and duty of care are met and maintained. Government agencies may also be required to facilitate integration of services and referral of clients.
The practical implementation and the mechanics of the proposed legislation, such as guidelines for authorised persons and police procedures, will need to be considered. Assessment tools, referral arrangements and protocols between treatment and rehabilitation services, safe places, health services, and the justice system will be developed and appropriately resourced. Monitoring and review processes will also need to be considered to ensure that agreed and high standards of services are provided at all times to all clients by all agencies.
This legislation provides a whole-of-community response to volatile substance abuse. It meets the identified needs of the communities, and harnesses and strengthens the resources of communities and agencies to respond to the problems associated with abuse of volatile substances.
Lastly, I would like to thank my Cabinet and caucus colleagues who have given me the support required, not only to bring forward these bills, but to allocate the additional $10m. Those who know me know how passionate I am about this issue. Addressing the scourge of substance abuse is one of the reasons I entered politics, and I thank my colleagues for supporting me bringing forward this bill today.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 6 October 2004.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of minor comments. I welcome the bill introduced by the government. It certainly broadens the application for the use of different names in areas throughout the Northern Territory. It enables areas, especially those not covered by local government, to also be included in being consulted about various names.
The only thing that I have always found difficult with place names were the changes that were brought in a few years back where what was once called Knuckey’s Lagoon had to become Knuckey Lagoon. Many people resent that, simply because I believe we were coming in - let me get the right word - we were falling in line - yes, I knew it had something to do with the Army; it must be the barracks affecting me - with international standards.
When you look at some of the old maps of Darwin, Knuckey’s Lagoon was spelt apostrophe s.
Mr Dunham: Knight’s Cliff.
Mr WOOD: That is right. For the life of me, I cannot see what was ever wrong with that. All right, it might not have fitted in with the world’s best practice, but it made a lot of sense. Of course, what it did when we tried to fall in line with the rest of the world was that places like Bees Creek and Freds Pass, if you had taken the ‘s’ out of those, you would have had Bee Creek - people might have thought that was something a bit rude - and Fred Pass did not quite have the same ring about it. We created some anomalies as well. I would be interested to know, minister, why we could not go back to calling Knuckey Lagoon Knuckey’s Lagoon, because it was named after Knuckey, and it makes good English to say Knuckey’s Lagoon.
It is just one of those things we have with changes to the place names bill. I thought it would be an opportunity to raise that because I know it does get up people’s noses a little that places that they used to call quite commonly with an ‘s’ have lost that ‘s’. That, to some extent for them, lost some of their local identification.
Otherwise, I do not have any other concerns about it; it is a good amendment. It allows other structures in other places and other groups - Aboriginal people not involved in local government - to be included in the naming of places. I believe it is a definite improvement on what we have at the present time.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Yes, this is one of my little pet passions too, Madam Speaker. As someone from here, I believe place names should reflect the history and the colloquialism of the place. If a place is dead fish hole where you go fishing, it should be called dead fish hole. It might not be a sweet sounding, palatable name, but if that is where people used to go, that is what it should be called.
It is a good thing to have Aboriginal place names. I have been to Wulungurru, Nganmarriyanga and Woodykupuldiya and places like that. However, when you start using some of those names outside of an Aboriginal context in urban settings, people find them very difficult to say. Indeed, all of the suburbs of Darwin are all Aboriginal words that are mispronounced. Most of them, if you look for instance at the oft-used word now of Maluka Drive - of which Katherine and Palmerston each have one – it is actually Malaga Drive. Malaga is a very common word. There is no offence or anything in it but, because a lady came up here for 18 months and phonetically wrote it that way in a book, everybody calls it Maluka. Of course, nobody wants to live in Malak Malak, so they live in Malak.
There is a difficulty with having Aboriginal names that are very difficult for common parlance. I am not saying not to have them; I believe it is great thing. However, it is a difficulty in places like Hermannsburg now - which is not called Hermannsburg but is commonly called Ntaria. All of these places have proper constituted Aboriginal names and they are still called by other colloquial ones. There is a problem when you change some of those names quickly. Duck Creek became Djembre which became Jilkminggan, and I think it is something else again now. Some of these names can change pretty quickly, and it can cause confusion.
I do not have a problem with the Place Names Committee going further than just public places; that is probably a good idea. I cannot understand what the minister means by - and I will read it out:
I do not know what that means. If it means you cannot have a place called Sheila’s Lookout because it might be an offensive or derogatory name for women, I do not know. However, I cannot understand what that means. Does it mean that we are going to have names that are non-gender specific? If that is the case, we should not have Emily’s Gap and all those sort of places. For Wildman River to be called Wildperson River would be stupid. If that is what is meant - and I do not know, so I am just surmising about that sentence. I have now read the second reading speech a couple of times and I still do not understand what the gender provisions and the government policy have to do with naming places. There should be distinctly feminine names and distinctly masculine names, and there should be names that conjure up feminine and masculine images. I do not have a problem with that.
Regarding the delegation of names, we have had some pretty crazy names. I know there was a big fight about Dundee Beach because that is not its proper name. People call it Dundee Beach, the developers call it Dundee Beach; it is a good name. Mr Dundee is a fictitious character from a movie who never, ever lived there - but what the heck! – it is Dundee Beach. We can be a bit too pure about this and, if we are going to give it to a group that says: ‘No, we have decided to call it this name’ - that might be a little quiz for the minister if he can tell me what the real name of the Dundee Beach is because …
Mr Wood: Namarada.
Mr DUNHAM: What is it?
Mr Maley: Namarada.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, there you are, you have the answer – 10 out of 10!
I do not think the amendments are really problematic. We have talked about it in the CLP and we support the bill. I believe it is really important that we look to those issues of confusion, particularly confusion that can come from a place name changing from an Anglicised name to an Aboriginal name - sometimes a couple of times. We should look at pronunciations being a big issue, particularly if we want to pay homage to that particular person, tribe or entity. It is important that people actually know how to say it because, to have something named after a relation - Secrett Road, for instance. A lot of people call it secret road. It is Secrett Road because it is named after the Secretts. It is really important, if you had a road named after one of your ancestors, that people actually pronounce it properly.
Therefore, confusion, proper pronunciations, and not being too squeamish about colloquial names that catch on and keep getting called that - that is not a problem. I also agree with the member for Nelson when he said there was a national or international way of doing it. One of the things they try to do is drop off first names, so you can only name it the surname. Walter Young Street in Katherine is still Walter Young Street, and I do not have a problem with using both names. Tiger Brennan Drive is a great name for a road - Tiger Brennan Drive; Dick Ward Road.
If there is a move to get to something that drops all the possessives off it, only calls it by the surname, I am against it, because it is good to live in a place where Humpty Doo is not a name that you find funny. I am glad we have a Humpty Doo and a Tiger Brennan Drive. If there is any move to change that to be more civil and genteel and whatever, I am agin it. That, of course, is a matter for the people who bestow these names, and I suppose that is who I am speaking to, rather than the act. The CLP supports this bill.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have great pleasure in supporting this bill. When I was flying into Alice Springs a couple of weeks ago, I was struck once again by the extraordinary beauty of the Arrernte country of the Alice Springs region. In saying this, I am only partly talking about the ever-changing colours of the MacDonnell Ranges and their tangled maze of spinifex-dotted hills and valleys, and the sands of the Todd River that runs past the ghost gums that lean over its course. That is only part of it.
I was also struck by the very real sense you get that the buildings and streets represent only the surface of the township of Alice Springs; that the footpaths and bitumen, houses and shops form but a thin layer of dust over the land. It is the sense that the beauty of the country runs deep and reflects age-old traditions, and that the growth of a town like Alice reflects qualities far more ancient and life-affirming than brick and mortar.
As Arrernte elder, Wenten Rubuntja, described it in his biography launched last year, Alice Springs is a town that ‘grew up dancing’. The point he makes in that book, published by the local Institute for Aboriginal Development, is that it is the language of the traditional owners of Alice Springs, Arrernte, that is intrinsic to the living culture and heritage of the town, and the Arrernte country that forms and surrounds it. It is language that defines place and the interrelationship between places. Beneath and beyond the streetscape of Alice Springs lies an interconnected landscape of language. So it goes as you move north to Darwin, through our Anmatyerr and Kaytej country, and thence through the traditional lands of the Warrumungu, Warlmanpa, Wakaya, Jingili and Mudbura peoples, and on again through the traditional lands of the Yangman Mangarrayi, Dagoman and Jawoyn peoples.
The point of what I am saying is that each of these language groups, and many others besides, is an integral part of a mosaic that makes up what we now call the Northern Territory. Increasingly in the Northern Territory, indigenous languages have come to be accepted as a legitimate part of our broader society, and part of this is the acceptance of the importance of the linguistic landscape of and the issue of Aboriginal place names in the Northern Territory. It is an area that has provoked some controversy in the Territory in the past.
A number of you might remember the silly outrage that was sparked in 1985 when Anangu traditional owners decided to name a major national park south-west of Alice Springs Uluru-Kata Tjuta. It was predicted at the time - urged on by certain politicians and media commentators - that it would ruin the reputation of a national tourism icon if the name of an obscure South Australian colonial official was dropped in favour of Pitjantjatjara place names. Similarly, though perhaps less stridently, when the Jawoyn people gave as a dual name Nitmiluk to Katherine Gorge National Park, the doomsayers were out with similar arguments. History and, indeed, commercial reality has proved how wrong these critics were. Both Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Nitmiluk are now firmly entrenched in the national and international imagination as iconic national parks.
It also proved something else: that the marketplace does not have a problem with the use of Aboriginal place names. Indeed, arguably, because the knowledge of traditional place names of the Northern Territory is so extensive, we may actually enjoy a competitive advantage in the naming of our significant places across the Territory. It is an advantage that can help define the uniqueness of the Territory in the international marketplace.
Imagine how this could transform the way all of us look at the Territory. Without pre-empting what people might decide to do, how much more interesting a place like Katherine’s Low Level Crossing would be if it was also known as Gawutjwutjmar, a place of boiling and bubbling water. Or if Knotts Crossing also carried the Jawoyn name Mandarpa commemorating a place Gupu the kangaroo paused for a drink on its ancestral journey. This is being increasingly recognised.
Tourist operators in Tennant Creek - long a battle ground over the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act - now issue and promote local maps which show both the English and Warrumungu names for features of the land in and around the town. David Brooks’ The Arrernte Landscape: A Guide to the Dreaming Tracks and Sights of Alice Springs performs a similar function. Many street names in the Alice bear Arrernte words.
When a similar idea to signpost signs around the township area with Jawoyn place names was suggested in Katherine in the early 1908s, opposition from the then Katherine Town Council was vociferous. I wonder if the same would happen now. Surely, no one could pretend there is much evocative, let alone poetic, about First, Second and Third Streets in Katherine. Might we not, perhaps, take up Robert Lee’s suggestion of a few years ago and rename them Wardaman, Dagoman and Jawoyn Streets, thus recognising the three language groups with a traditional focus on the Katherine region.
These amendments to the Place Names Act will facilitate the naming of places in the Territory. They will allow, at the request of Aboriginal groups and in consultation with them, for a much easier process of allotting traditional names to communities and physical features of their land. It will encourage, where appropriate, the dual naming of place where differing heritage coincides. This does not mean the compulsory changing of names or that more recent histories would be ignored in naming places - far from it. This is not about rewriting history, but about expanding on our myriad multicultural heritage. However, it might mean something quite wonderful and inclusive for all Territorians and the people who visit.
One can image a project, for example, that included land councils, community councils, language and literacy production centres, the Aboriginal Areas Protections Authority, tourist groups and members of the broader community to produce an atlas of the Territory that could include some of the thousands of Aboriginal place names that exist alongside those from more recent historical traditions. It would literally put the status, legitimacy and diversity of Aboriginal languages on the map. In more than one sense of the word, it would be a landmark in the history of Territory publishing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, our sense of place as Territorians is intimately linked with language. Whether you are Greek, Chinese, Italian, Anglo, Aboriginal or any of the other heritage groups represented in the Territory, this holds true.
The Place Names Committee has served the Territory well over the years and will continue to do so. These amendments recognise the committee’s past practice of extensive consultation and will streamline and enhance their work in the future. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome contributions from all members. I want to place on record my interaction with the Place Names Committee, which I did not have a chance to do in my second reading speech.
When I lived in Millner, we lived in Kelsey Place and that came off Kelsey Crescent. I can remember many times the pizzas going missing, a pizza bloke coming to the door looking for the address in the other place, taxi cabs zooming up and down when you were wanting to go to the airport, or even people trying to chase up cheques and mail and whatever from one place to the other. I decided to do something about it, and took up a petition and engaged the Place Names Committee, and was successful in getting the name changed. I did ask for it to be changed to Burns Place, but that was unsuccessful. No, not really. It was changed to Belle Place.
Mr Wood: You have to be dead!
Mr Stirling: We already have a Burns Court.
Dr BURNS: Burnsy’s Place! But there you go, it was changed from Kelsey Place to Belle Place. I found out the history. Kelsey, I believe, was a surveyor and Belle was his daughter, so there you go. We got the pizzas and the mail we wanted, and the cabs came to the right place at the right time. Place names are important, from a very functional level, including police, fire and emergency and all the rest of it, so it is an important issue.
The member for Nelson talked about having the capacity to have colloquial names. I will certainly write to the Place Names Committee and put to them that, as part of parliamentary debate, that this was a suggestion, and that a number of members were not particularly worried about what were international conventions. We were more interested in a bit of traditional and colloquialism in the Territory. I will certainly undertake to do that, to let them know the feelings within the House here.
The member for Drysdale asked the question about the second reading speech statement that finally, the amendments also include the updated gender provisions. That has nothing to do with place names. It actually relates to the act itself and, ‘he and she’, or ‘he’ in the act, are the gender provisions which apply to our legislation these days. We are not turning one name from a male name into a female name or vice versa.
I took on board what was said about Dundee and Namarada. I call it Dundee in my press releases when I talk about power and the road to Dundee, so I am certainly acknowledging that name of Dundee in press releases.
I would like to compliment the member for Arnhem. I thought he gave a very poetic and deeply felt contribution to this debate. He talked about the rhythm of the Aboriginal names that exist, and those co-existing with more recent history. He was not talking about a prescriptive approach, but something that could enrich us all, and I commend that.
I commend the Place Names Committee for the work they have to do. They have been given more responsibility, and I am sure they will discharge that responsibility very well and to the credit of the Territory and to the names of the Territory. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 13 October 2004.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, the second reading of this bill emphasises the reasons for the amendments, which is to mirror amendment provisions in the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, allowing for a single national legislative authority safety approach.
Given that the offshore petroleum industry employs hundreds of people - from all states, territories and overseas - who work, potentially, in a high risk area, it is commonsense and practical that offshore safety is regulated accordingly and is in line with the Commonwealth regulations. Legislation should be in place to protect offshore workers with all the risks involved in this workplace.
The Northern Territory, in repealing section 150 of the principle act and substituting Part 3, Occupational Health and Safety, should ensure that the same high standards of OH&S rights and protections for all workers who work in the offshore industry nationally. Having a young brother who has, for many years, spent considerable periods of time on various rigs off the coast of Australia and overseas doing a fairly specialised job, I am very conscious and aware of the importance of national offshore petroleum safety. The legislation amendments are technical and comprehensive and appear, in my readings of them, to cover all aspects of occupational health and safety. The highest standards of occupational health and safety should be at the forefront of any offshore activity and, as such, I support the amendments to this bill to have the safety authority commencing operation on 1 January 2005.
I make a suggestion to the minister. He could consider co-locating the office of this National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority in with the Minerals Foundation so that they can work cooperatively. This would negate duplication and it would also give the Northern Territory the highest national safety standards possible. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendments to this bill.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I recall when I was studying at the university in Perth in 1983, one of the subjects we studied was occupational health and safety. They showed us a video of an accident that happened on an offshore platform in the waters of the North Sea in the north of Britain. It was an accident that could have been avoided, but was not, and resulted in tens of people dying when they sought refuge in what they thought was a safety area. The tragedy was actually that helicopters were hovering around the platform but they could not pick up people on the platform because of the flames and the smoke. They resorted to filming what happened. I recall very well at the end, when the safety module where they had the accommodation actually burnt and, while it was burning, collapsed and sank into the North Sea.
I agree with the member for Katherine: it is very important that we safeguard the health and safety of the people - Australians and people from other countries - if they work on offshore petroleum platforms and in the petroleum industry. These amendments ensure that now we are going to have one authority - the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority - that will actually oversee occupational health and safety in the waters from the low water mark all the way to the Commonwealth borders, thus having the same standards applying throughout Australia and anywhere north, south, east - from the Bass Strait all the way to the Timor Sea. That is very important. That is as a result of an agreement signed between the Commonwealth and other states and territories to have uniform legislation.
Instead of having some small authorities - one for Western Australia, one for the Northern Territory, one for Queensland - we have put one authority in place, and that authority will oversee the safety of the people there. I believe that the NOPSA - the acronym of the new authority - has advertised for people and selected people from the existing authorities from the different states, because they want to have the expertise and keep the people who already knew their areas and territories. I believe it is a very good idea. Member for Katherine, I believe the people who work for NOPSA in the Territory will be in the same area. They will be within the department so that will increase synergies.
Once again, I thank the opposition for their support of this legislation. It is legislation that we have to sign in order to have a true national approach in some of these issues. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 7 October 2004.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I advise the House that the opposition supports the Professional Standards Bill. It has come to this House following a lot of industry and private support, and lobbying of government to provide an indemnity cap on professional activities by professionals such as lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects and the like.
It is a way for professionals such as those listed to ensure that their professional lives are not too significantly constrained through the huge indemnity cover that they have to buy. Since the collapse of HIH and all the things that have followed from that, obviously, we are all very concerned about what sort of costs professionals have to pay to provide themselves with professional indemnity. Lucky for them, though, they are not obstetricians who face something in the order of $40 000 per year for professional indemnity. Nobody caps it for them. I will grant that the federal government has provided money to assist medical professionals to offset their huge rise in indemnity costs.
This bill will, in fact, allow the non-medical professionals to develop professional bodies and, from within the professional bodies, develop schemes through which they can produce, recommend or institute caps on professional indemnity. It allows clients, customers, to know up-front how well they are covered financially. For instance, you might have a $100m project and you go to an architect, engineer or lawyer for their professional services and find that they are covered to the amount of your project. Then you at least feel comforted that if anything goes really wrong - if the project goes A over T, as they say - then you are at least financially covered, if nothing else.
The professional body at least will provide assurance in the form of professional development of their membership. In that way, it gives us some comfort that the professionals in those schemes are of a minimum standard, and that can only be better for the profession, if nothing else.
I understand that this bill is only to cover pure economic loss and nothing further than that. From that perspective, the opposition cannot argue about it whatsoever. I have spoken to some of the professionals who have written letters to both the government and the opposition and have given a very strong support. Accordingly, we will support it; there is no reason why we should not.
We look forward to a good, fair scheme where the professionals’ schemes will reflect the cost to the industry, and any savings that they make passing on to the consumer. That is the more important point: that those savings made by the professional, because they have to pay less in professional indemnity, will be passed on. If they do, then I believe that the community in the Northern Territory have nothing to complain about. However, if the savings are not passed on and if the professional fees continue to remain at a high level, it is just money for jam for the professionals, and that is not right. I am sure their professional ethics will ensure that they do the right thing by the community, and I look forward to that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the bill.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the spokesperson with responsibility for these matters from the opposition supporting the bill.
It is a fact that each jurisdiction has put in a lot of work in the last few years in relation to insurance questions generally. In this case, it has to do with insurance around professional groups, accountants, lawyers, engineers and the like. The legislation ties, consistently, with that adopted across Australia, closely following the New South Wales legislation. The need for it is quite clear when you look at the increase in premiums accruing to groups such as these professional groups since about 1999, with massive increase in the order of 130% to 140% over the past four years.
The primary reason for legislation of this kind is, of course, to stay with the other jurisdictions and not leave a hole anywhere in Australia that people could walk through in terms of actions like these. However, most importantly, it ensures that insurance products remain available and insurance companies remain in the market for professional groups such as these to obtain insurance cover and, second, that the premium increases we have seen to that order or magnitude over the past few years will be reduced over time as all of these legislative measures begin to take effect.
There is criticism from some groups around saying that QBE and the like are racking up millions of dollars of profits, and asking where the advantage is for the consumer in reduced premiums. The fact is that, if these actions had not been taken by state and territory governments around Australia over the past few years, there would have been an absolute flight of capital from the insurance market and a whole lot of areas, and everyone would have been left totally exposed. Both providers and users of the service, the consumer, would have had no where to go because no one would have been prepared to put the capital into the market.
We have to recognise that the Australian insurance market is about 1% of the global market, and we are not up there in lights as the biggest market around. The Northern Territory, in turn, is about 1% of the Australian market, so we are not up there in lights either. It is incumbent on us as a jurisdiction, having given support at various ministerial councils, that we work with colleagues and stay with the other jurisdictions in legislative processes taking place across Australia in order to reign in premium increases and ensure that insurance companies stay in the market.
It will take time to see all of these effects because you have to have cases come through the courts and being run against the amended legislations, or new legislations in each of the jurisdictions and decisions made in line with the new legislation - realising probably lower benefits than were available before, or at least capped - so that everyone understands the full extent of the liability that they might be up for. That will take time right across Australia for all of those decisions to filter into the system and for premiums to adjust accordingly.
Two objectives have already been achieved to some extent. One, of course, is that availability is still there in the marketplace. That was critical for everyone. The second is the magnitude of the premier increases over the last 12 months or so is nothing like the level of premium increases that were being experienced prior to the raft of legislative reform that has taken place.
We are not finished; there is still more reform to come through. Proportionate liability is another big body of work that is taking place, and we would expect to see that legislation some time in the new year. That would just about round up the current range of reform that is taking place across insurance industry and liability.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his supportive remarks. We cannot expect things to turn around overnight. However, I am confident that we will, in time, see all of this legislation have a healthy effect on premiums and we will see them reduced.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 12 October 2004.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a pity, isn’t it? - not that I am calling for a quorum - but look at the state of the House. Everybody is out on Christmas cheer already, and we are still working over here.
This report, called the Assessment of Organisational Effectiveness, Human Resource and Management Systems within the DEET Central Australian Office is an indictment on the minister, who appears to not know what to do. His response to my question today clearly shows that he has no idea what is happening. Nor does he care whether the complaints brought about by the aggrieved teachers are resolved. To bring this debate on today - the last sittings day for the year, followed by a lengthy summer recess - is nothing but a simple exercise of political expediency. Let us get this report buried over the Christmas break. When we come back next year, all this will be forgotten.
Mr Stirling: We brought it in, in the last sittings.
Dr LIM: As it was. The report was commissioned around this time last year and was already in the hands of the minister within a few months, but it took until October before it saw light of day. Your procrastination knows no bounds. Minister, this report will not be forgotten. It will not be left collecting dust in your office. I will see to that. The aggrieved teachers will see to that. The media will see to that. I suggest that the minister gets his head around the issues described in the report and methodically deals with them item by item.
Peppered through the report are words like ‘bully’, ‘harassment’, ‘old boys and girls club’, ‘excessive time taken to resolve issues’, and a myriad of many other derisive comments about the operations of the Central Australian office of DEET. And the procrastination continues. The minister declined to tell us when the complaints brought by the said aggrieved teachers will be resolved. That is what is frustrating. These aggrieved teachers have been waiting in expectation of the handing down of the report from which they can find some course to help them move on in their lives. It is obvious the minister does not care about these people.
Let us go to the report and work through it. If I can summarise the report in a few words, these will be the words that I use, and I quote from the report:
This is a massive indictment of both departments and how they do business, at least in the business of managing departmental personnel.
Both departments are under the responsibility of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training - the man who is in charge of both - two departments under the same minister and both dysfunctional. What is the common denominator? The minister! That is clearly a sign that this minister is not doing his job, to put it mildly.
What are the consequences of this poor management of grievances? Let us go back to the report where it says:
The reviewer further commented that she was limited by the scope of her contract to review the problems; that there could not be any analysis of benchmarks or questions of human resource management performance of the senior managers of the Central Australian region; or whether the issues are specific to Central Australia or Territory-wide. In the body of the report, she suggested that there should be a review of the whole of DEET.
This report should ring loud alarm bells for the minister and the government, and the minister should be proceeding as efficiently as he possibly can to get the matters addressed and resolved. Some of the cases have been quoted in this Chamber before. In one case, a principal who had saved a bush school from collapse and went on to achieve recognition for the school at Territory and national levels for innovation, resilience and education reform, had been forced out by the education system in the Territory and denied due process at every turn. She approached the minister, and the minister repeatedly denied her access.
I quote from the Alice Springs News:
Terrific, isn’t it? She tried to approach a minister repeatedly and failed. The moment she took her redundancy, the minister was prepared to say: ‘Terrific’.
Case two, is the case of a bush principal who was pulled out at short notice in the middle a flood, causing her to risk driving through creeks where water came over the bonnet of her car. She had to drive the car with her three children in it - three small children - through flood waters. After two years of battling the department, she finally said: ‘I give up, I cannot do anymore’. She left the Territory with her family. I know, because she has been in communication with me.
In the third case, a specialist teacher waited more than 16 months for an apology from the department over administrative errors that caused that teacher to lose her position and to suffer chronic depression and anxiety. Even a psychiatrist said: ‘It is because of the way the department dealt with her that has aggravated her condition’. They are all waiting for justice, for redress - and they are still waiting.
Central Australia has about 15% of the total DEET staff complement, yet it generates about 33% of the total section 59 grievance applications within DEET in just these past three years. The minister, in his tabling speech, listed some nine themes that emerged from the review. He glossed over many others.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my time keeps flicking from half an hour to 20 minutes to 15 minutes. I hope I have time to complete what I have to say.
The minister, in his tabling speech, listed some nine themes which emerged from the review. He glossed over many others. The list in the report totalled 22. Let me read them out to you:
I commend the appointment of Rita Henry and Paul Newman to their respective roles of General Manager South and General Manager Schools. I have high expectations for these two to deal with issues which have been identified. Whether they will, or can, or not, is yet to be seen. I wonder what political will there is behind them, when you see a minister who is conspicuous by his absence in his influence over this matter.
What concerns me, however, is that little action has occurred since the tabling of the report. We know that the General Manager is on extended leave until next year. That is her right and I do not have an issue with that. The issue I have is that this minister is prepared to sit back and do nothing until the General Manager is back. Reorganisation of the CAO requires the combined effort of both the General Manager and the General Manager Schools. How on earth can we expect the General Manager Schools, acting in the role of General Manager, to do his own job and the General Manager’s job and, at the same time, readdress the grievances that are still outstanding? The report was quite specific:
While we wait for the return to the full complement of managerial staff at the CAO, all aggrieved teachers will just have to keep their lives on hold. This is where the hypocrisy of this minister galls me. He sits there telling us that he is concerned about the poor performance of the CAO in DEET, but he is completely oblivious to the hardships and pain that many of the aggrieved teachers have suffered. He ignored their pleadings to him. One aggrieved teacher complained that the only time that the minister would respond to her, as I said earlier, was when she accepted her redundancy. This is the arrogance of the minister who hides his head in the sand. Well, minister, just like an ostrich, you may hide your head, but your rear is still exposed and the teachers can see you for what you are.
Let me now come to the findings of the report. I will stay away from reference to any specific persons. The reality is that the system has failed, and the person responsible for that is the minister. Do not blame the CEO although they have, ultimately, the responsibility of running the departments. Look at yourself, minister; the buck stops with you. What did the review find? It found that the CAO:
Also that there were:
And:
It found that:
However, more importantly, the review reveals a number of examples of very poor human resource management practices by the CEO, principals and General Managers, both in Darwin and in Alice Springs. Also:
With the government policy of centralisation, officers based in Darwin have no idea about Central Australia - no local knowledge. Yes, they travel down there every so often, but they do not have the ethos of Central Australia. The report is clear on this. I quote:
When we have a culture of management at a CAO that labelled staff as, and I quote this one from the report:
One aspect of the review with which I disagree is the assumption it made, and I quote:
I am surprised that the reviewer was not aware of the torrent of money flowing from the GST into the coffers of this minister, who is also the Treasurer. Even so, the reviewer made a long list of strategies - page upon page of them. They are on pages 24 to 28 of the report, which I shall not read into Hansard.
They should be implemented for the CAO to get things in order. These processes should be put in place as soon as possible, not wait another few months over the summer recess and then come back at the start of the school year with little progress being implemented. Now is the time to get on with it, while school is in recess and the CAO can work without the additional load of managing schools.
The comment of the reviewer that CAO was concerned about the number of ministerials that were generated in the Central Australian region worries me. It is a clear indication of a culture of fear in a CAO. One needs to ask: why is there such a culture of fear? There are concerns of ‘do not generate another ministerial’, as if they were fearful that to generate another ministerial will cause them some wrath from above.
On previous occasions, I have stated that the public service has worked in a culture of fear under this government, with this government’s collective hand at the neck throttling the public service. This must be the case. When sections of a department are worried by the number of ministerials, it sends me one message: the department, at some time or another, had been hauled over the coals by the minister for the number of ministerials. What an appalling state of affairs when the public service is fearful of doing their job to give unfettered advice - to give advice without fear of foe. Now, what do we do from here?
Let me now go to the Office of the Commissioner of Public Employment. The report criticises the OCPE of being derelict in its duties. The report said:
The OCPE had benchmarks for grievance processes but never followed up on it:
Reading from the report, it says:
More than a year:
Those 27-day resolutions were very few indeed. I continued reading from the report:
The fact that the OCPE failed to audit whether its benchmarks were being followed surely demonstrates that the OCPE has let down the public servants that it was set up to look after. The review recommended an implementation plan with clear time lines. Phase one was due to commence between April to June 2004. Considering that the report has been in the hands of the minister since June this year - so he tells us - I am prepared to defer the implementation of the report from the time he received the report, which was June. Therefore, between June and August at least phase one should have been implemented.
According to the report again, by February to March 2005 - according to the time line recommended by the review - everything should be in place, and a review of the overall achievements of the CAO should have been done then. Let us say it is deferred to at least the end of first term. I expect that will happen, or I will be asking to see that it happens. We can now expect all that time lag for many months.
Minister, what I am angry about is your inaction. In spite of a reasonably detailed report, complete with its findings and recommendations, all very clearly set out, you continue to procrastinate. And who suffers? Definitely not you, the minister. Not the CEO of the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Not the Commissioner of Public Employment. No, these persons continue in their highly-paid jobs. But the aggrieved teachers, what about them? Where do they go? When do they get redress on the injustice done to them? What do you say to the teacher who has had to take redundancy so that she can escape from the dysfunctional environment that she was trapped in? What do you say to the teacher who was sacked unfairly? What do you say to the teacher who now cannot teach in the Northern Territory - when he wants to live in the Territory - because of the injustice done to him?
Minister, you have a lot to answer for. You are the minister responsible for both DEET and OCPE. At the end of the day, the CEOs of both agencies are responsible for the operations of their respective agencies, and you are responsible for how they manage them. On your shoulders sits the responsibilities for addressing the wrongdoing on these aggrieved teachers. I trust you will do that quickly and let them get on with their lives.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am always hopeful when I see the member for Greatorex stand to try to get to the heart of an issue. He seems to swim through a sea of detail like a shark with blocked sinuses. He cannot see or smell the target, and all we end up with is this grand tour of all the extraneous things that he wants to bring into it.
There is a key issue in here which brought on the review, is addressed in the review, and now needs to now be implemented very strongly in Central Australia. The key issue is the culture that has existed in that Office of Central Australia for, not just the period of this government, but for many years. Let us talk about this culture. The culture is based on the fact that people managing from that office were facing the wrong way. They were, basically, facing towards the line of control up to Darwin. They were much more concerned about the rules and regulations and their positions within the organisation than they were for the key responsibilities they had, which was to support and encourage teachers and the programs they were running in Central Australia.
I will tell you what it is like to be a working teacher when you are faced with that sort of culture. I can tell you this absolutely from first personal experiences. If you show a bit of loyalty to your community, to the aims of the schools you have some responsibilities in, and what you end up facing was prescription from the regional office, oppressive decisions that were made, facing disciplinary actions many times, and many good, fine teachers who were committed to their communities faced disciplinary action because of the loyalty they were showing to their schools in that community.
The other group of teachers who suffered from this culture were the teachers who were vulnerable. They were often in very difficult professional positions, out bush and not coping well with the bush environment, and not coping with the teaching methodologies that they had to adapt to because of the uniqueness of the program out there. What should they have been getting from the Education Department, particularly from the regional office? They should have been getting timely support, encouragement and, certainly, a sense that the department was there for them to protect them from the vulnerability they were feeling.
Again, I could cite from personal experience a whole range of teachers who have been shredded by the lack of support that came out of that office over the years. That is the problem that brought on the review. We can go on all you like about the org charts, who is going to report to whom and other processes, and play the blame game, if you like. However, this culture is there. It was there when I was teaching, and I was teaching for nine years at Yuendumu and, before that, with Adult Education. I am talking right back as a very long-standing feature of the way the Central Australian Regional Office went about its business. I can say that many fine teachers have suffered because of the culture that was in that regional office.
I commend the minister for bringing on a review which was long overdue. It should have been done when Mr Hypocrite over here had a position of authority within the CLP Cabinet …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! This is really unnecessary and I call him to withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you withdraw that, please?
Mr Stirling: It has been used a hundred times today.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but in this case it was personal.
Dr TOYNE: Well, if it has gone out of fashion, yes, I will withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Dr TOYNE: However, it does really get up my nose to see the righteous indignation that is coming from over there, when this person was in a very good position to do something about this when these exact same things were happening over a very long period of time when he was in public life and they were in government. He has to be a bit careful here about how much he pushes the moral high ground because he has absolutely none.
There are many teachers who have suffered through the period that he was on his watch, long before it came to this minister to assess the situation and determine to do something about it. This minister has done something about it. We now have a document in front of this House with recommendations that will allow this problem finally to be addressed.
As one of the many teachers who had their careers blighted by the attitudes that existed within the administration and the management practices of the agency - and the professional and personal lives of many of my professional colleagues and my friends in that region blighted by this management culture that had established and maintained itself over many years within that office - I am very familiar with the many community interests that were hanging off the programs that were also being curtailed. One example is that many teachers out bush, because of what they are hearing from parents and the community leadership, have attempted over the years to try to move towards some provision of secondary education out bush. I have absolutely clear examples where that resulted in disciplinary action from the regional office in Central Australia.
What does that say to a teacher? If you listen to your community, act in a professionally responsible way, you cop the big stick from the agency. That is the ultimate cost of this culture that has existed in that office: it has held back the evolution of education in Central Australia for probably two decades. That is an absolute disgrace and tragedy.
I do not want to hear too much about who is to blame for this. I am not looking for …
Mr Dunham: You started off blaming us. God, you are a hypocrite!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr TOYNE: I am not looking for …
Mr Dunham: You are a hypocrite.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you will withdraw that comment, please.
Mr DUNHAM: It has been allowed, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr DUNHAM: I did seek clarification today …
Mr Stirling: You have been asked to withdraw, so withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr DUNHAM: Well, it has been allowed and disallowed and I have asked the Speaker today if the word ‘hypocrite’ was allowed.
Mr Stirling: You have been asked to withdraw. Chuck him out, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker has told me it is allowed.
Mr Stirling: You have been asked to withdraw. You are challenging the Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw, please.
Mr DUNHAM: Can I seek your clarification: the word ‘hypocrite’ is no longer able to be used, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No …
Mr Stirling: No, it was ruled out before you walked in.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will give an explanation in a minute. Will you withdraw?
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw. I am very confused. You have allowed and disallowed it seven times.
Mr Stirling: You used it 12 times this morning.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The reason I am asking people to withdraw that is because the description is the person. They are not talking about whether the statement they are making is hypocritical. They are aiming it, as I regard it, as a personal insult and I am not allowing it in this debate.
Mr DUNHAM: I am happy to abide by the rules as long as they do not change.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Deputy Speaker, as I was saying, the aim that I have in addressing this report is not to go looking for scalps and individual people who should bear the blame for this – although, God knows they are out there - but to see that this sort of culture does not go on into the future. If we can see a supportive and a consultative culture, one that is sticking up for teachers and helping to support their programs, encouraging them to take initiatives and not just simply looking over their shoulder to see what they can punish them for, then I will then believe that at least that has been put right.
That is a form of justice. I am not looking for individual justice in this. I am looking for justice for my profession, for my region and for the communities that exist in the region and the interests that they have in our education system. If we get that out of this report, then that has been a fantastic breakthrough - and it is a breakthrough that was 20 years in coming.
I have huge faith, particularly in Rita Henry, and the new management that is going into Central Australia. I have spoken to Rita about her aims and motivations for taking the job in Central Australia - apart from the obvious that it is a great place to live and a very creative place to follow your profession. Rita Henry is the person that can put a professional culture in there, a supportive culture, one that can respond competently to the professional needs of the teachers and to the aspirations of our communities in Central Australia as regards education. I look forward to supporting Rita and Paul in any way that I can in my role in public life and as a local member covering a great deal of that region.
The cavalry has finally arrived at the pass. We can safely say that, if we have the right people bringing the culture we need in that office, things like all the other issues that the member for Greatorex wanted to trot through in his contribution - such as how it is going to be organised and timeliness of responses - will flow from that right culture. It is pointless doing any of that unless you have the right people with a commitment to the profession, the region and the communities that provide the kids that we have the responsibility to educate.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been a fantastic outcome to this. Next year will be ground zero in finally getting a support office that is going to allow teachers to get some confidence that they can contribute professionally to the evolution and continued development of education in Central Australia. I look forward to next year; it is going to be great.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): I thought there might be more contributions, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy to sum up, and I thank members for their contributions.
The member for Stuart spoke to me, at the time that I was starting to get representation from Alice Springs around these concerns, because I knew he would know, with his long experience in Central Australia, the veracity of some of this representation and the long history in some of those cases. When it was clear to me, on top of that representation and my discussions with the member for Stuart, I used the Public Sector Management Act, section 18(3), to order this report. Under that provision, I can receive a report into the organisational effectiveness of a workplace. I am also compelled, under Part 4 of that same provision, to table the consequential report in this place.
I spoke with different individuals involved with this who had grievances with the department, at different times on visits to Alice Springs. I always understood that the report flowing from this investigation was not going to be pretty. In fact, if it was pretty, I would have distrusted the report itself because my instincts were strong enough to realise that things had not been good down there.
The two most damning findings in the whole report were these: one, there was a lack of leadership. Once you have a lack of leadership, many other consequences flow from that, including, of course, the second most damning finding, which was that we had a culture that did not value people. A culture that did not value people is extremely concerning because we have people in remote parts of Central Australia who are doing it tough anyway. When they have a department representative in a leadership and management position on whom they ought to be able to rely for support in the first instance, and when that support is not forthcoming - in fact, worse than the lack of support in that you get intransigence and opposition to requests for support - then you have real difficulties.
They are harsh findings, but those findings themselves provided all the justification that I would ever have needed as a minister to act - and we have. The member for Greatorex asked when we are going to do something about it? The incumbents in those positions have long gone. The people who were holding down those positions - General Manager Schools, General Manager - are long gone. How did they go? Where did they go? It was because we had already taken action well before this report came into this House.
There is another point. He said: ‘You have hidden this report until Christmas’. This is dated 12 October, when I tabled this here. ‘Hidden until Christmas and we want to debated it on the last …’! We could have held it over until the New Year if you were so precious about it being debated today. It was introduced on 12 October; there was no attempt to hide it whatsoever.
The previous occupants of those management positions are long gone. This morning and again this evening, the member for Greatorex stated that he has confidence in the General Manager Schools, but he does not believe General Manager Schools ought be expected to resolve outstanding grievances at the same time that he is also holding that other General Manager position. Well, fair point if it were true. However, it is not true, because those long-term outstanding grievances are the province of, not the General Manager Schools, not the General Manager, but the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment once they are formalised as grievances.
The report also involved OCPE and the commissioner’s office and said that OCPE should have greater resources and greater labour behind the handing of grievances. This has been addressed. It was an important issue that came out of the report in its own right. OCPE, I believe, very importantly, is now building in early intervention strategies. That is the smartest and best, and the most effective and efficient strategy that they can employ: get to the heart of the problem; get to the base of it - the problem that the individual employee has - before positions become polarised between the employee on one side and management and the department on the other, and before people start to develop victim mentalities, while you still have a healthy person you can deal with. We well know how difficult these situations become once rationality starts to disappear. Communications are being improved and information on grievances and appeal processes are being strengthened, as per the report’s recommendations.
We cannot change what occurred. I am sorry that these situations arose there, and for the hurt and damage, in some cases, inflicted upon some of the individuals. However, what we can do, and what we have a responsibility to do, is to change it and to make it better for the future. That is why so many steps have already been taken to address the deficiencies found in the report.
I resent the member for Greatorex’s criticism of the fact that the General Manager is taking leave before taking up the position. She, like everyone else - and I imagine the member for Greatorex will not be shy about taking a couple of weeks off at Christmas, having been through Malaysia and India to look at call centres just recently. He will not be shy about taking a couple of weeks off at Christmas …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: … when he wants to bag one of the hardest working public servants in the whole department. He has criticised her very heavily for taking leave!
Dr Lim: No, I did not say that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, minister! Enough! We have been through this once before. It is Christmas; we could just calm down. Minister, I believe you can get your point across without causing half a riot in here. Minister, please.
Mr STIRLING: The new appointee to the position of General Manager in Alice Springs, Rita Henry, more than anyone I know, is entitled to have leave, and I resent the fact that she was criticised by the member for Greatorex for taking it.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday 8 February 2005 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Macdonnell addressed to Madam Speaker:
Is the proposed discussion supported? I call on the member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister has already announced that he intends to give me a full dressing down on this issue today in parliament. Of course, that is reflective of the minister’s attitude towards this whole issue. He has not yet even heard the case stated from any member on this side of the House and, yet, he has made it abundantly clear that he fully expects to give me and this side of the House a dressing down over the issue.
Indeed, the minister’s attitude has been surmised by the fact that he sought through - in my opinion - devious means to bring this matter into the House in a ministerial report on Tuesday. He full well knows that he only has to speak for five minutes in a ministerial report, and any examination of what he says is limited to two minutes only. Therefore, the minister has sought, through the structures of this House, to try and avoid any debate whatsoever on this particular issue. For the people who read the Parliamentary Record in the future, they should read it with the understanding that the minister has used a means of introducing this matter into the House without introducing it into the House at all. Consequently, we are here at 7 pm on a Thursday evening of the last parliamentary sitting date available to us for the year, and I have to bring on an MPI, rather than the minister presenting a full ministerial statement - a statement which is capable of being debated by all members in this House.
The minister was not at a public meeting held a couple of weeks ago in Alice Springs …
Mr Henderson: He was in Cabinet.
Mr ELFERINK: … in spite of the fact that he was able to get down there the very next day to dish out cheques …
Ms Lawrie: In Cabinet.
Mr ELFERINK: The fact is, the minister is fully capable of making his way to Alice Springs and, when there are 200 angry residents at a meeting – standing room only in one of the local school lunch sheds - the minister has, fundamentally, avoided his responsibility. What he did was send in some public servants and let them cop the ear full from some very angry residents …
Dr Toyne: We were in Cabinet. You know we have Cabinet on Tuesdays.
Mr ELFERINK: The public were asking of the minister: ‘Where are you?’ I was asking: ‘Where are you?’
Mr Henderson: Did you tell them we had Cabinet?
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: As far as I am concerned, the minister’s non-appearance is indicative of his whole attitude towards this particular issue.
That public meeting raised issues that concern me very deeply indeed, which is why I have asked this parliament to suspend its business for an hour-and-a-half or so to discuss the issue of the government’s and this minister’s policy towards the public housing stock, especially in the Larapinta area of Alice Springs.
When I was at that meeting, several issues concerned me gravely. The first was the clear sense that the place Larapinta is not a safe place in which to live. This was evidenced by any number of speakers standing up and describing some of the things that have happened to them. That is also reinforced by the many stories that I have seen in the Centralian Advocate about issues coming from there - and we are talking about riotous issues. It is curious that what happens on Palm Island gets national news; what happens in Larapinta in Alice Springs does not get national news …
Ms Lawrie: Talking the place down again!
Mr ELFERINK: However, sadly, we have large bodies of people causing destruction and damage in the Larapinta area of Alice Springs and it is gravely concerning, indeed. So much so, that one lady stood and said that her child was so frightened by the noise and the constant disorder in that area that the child had been wetting its bed in fear of what was happening out there.
With all the interjections I have heard so far from members opposite on this particular issue, I wonder what comfort that mother will get from the fact that the members of government are sitting there interjecting about where the minister may or may not have been, when …
Mr Henderson: Cabinet.
Mr ELFERINK: … her child is in so much fear that it wets the bed.
Assaults were reported, people complained of being attacked in and about their homes, they felt unsafe in the streets; the Larapinta area has become unsafe - there was a sexual assault there not so long ago just prior to that meeting. There were people whose children were too scared to come home from school in the day because there were problems with civil order in the Larapinta area. Almost exclusively, the problem seems to be stemming - and the streams of phone calls and e-mails that I have received in relation to this - indicate that the problems are coming from the housing stock.
I have visited the Larapinta area and inspected some of the 290 dwellings which are housing stock in that particular area, and many of those dwellings are clearly being abused by the people who live there. Those dwellings are full of people; are often being used by people who do not belong there. They are sleeping there and leaving mattresses all over the front yards and backyards of those houses, and there is rubbish and litter everywhere. There are still disturbances occurring, as we speak in this Chamber. There will be disturbances in that area tonight.
The other part of this that concerns me is that, as the shadow minister for Housing, I will become - as the current Minister for Housing is - the landlord. It is not a landlord as in ownership, it is a landlord-ship which is held on trust. The people who have placed that property on trust are the taxpayers of the Northern Territory. These houses are being clearly damaged by the people living in them and, if not by the people living in them, by the people visiting them. Obviously, the tenants are incapable of controlling the behaviour of those people who visit them. Therefore, the government has engaged in a policy of using the Northern Territory housing stock to place people who normally, or often, would reside in communities in town. The housing stock in communities are all too often damaged by the people who live out there, and the housing stock in Alice Springs is being treated in the same way. Even when the tenant is looking after the place, they seem to be incapable of protecting the place from their relatives, friends or just strangers who happen to drop by.
Much alcohol abuse occurs in this housing stock in the Larapinta area and much civil disorder results of that alcohol abuse. The minister acknowledges that the situation is getting out of hand because he has decided to use private security guards to offset the effect of these people coming in and abusing the housing stock.
It is worth pausing for a moment to consider what public housing is: it is a privilege. As much as people talk about rights, in the Australian community, a person who lives in a house either pays rent to be in that house - the full tote rent - or they buy their own home. There are some circumstances in which the government will step in to provide housing for people who are considered needy. That is normal; something that all governments do. However, when that privilege is extended, as landlord - the minister - one would expect that housing stock would be properly looked after. Clearly, in many instances in the Larapinta area, that housing stock is not being looked after, and the consequential social problems that are flowing from them flow on to the streets of Alice Springs.
The problem is that, amongst that housing stock are dwellings that are either rented by people who pay the full tote, or they own those houses. At the meeting the other week, I heard one gentleman say - and I am speculating but I guess that he was a man of not substantial means - that his house had been devalued by some $30 000 in a six-month period. That is a shocking thing because this man has been saving, presumably, for a very long time to buy his house. To have what, ultimately, would be his nest egg into old age devalued in such a way is a consideration to which the minister must turn his mind. The effect of his decision to use the housing stock for the social engineering in which he is engaging does not stop at the fence of the property. The effect goes over the fence to the property next door, the road at the front, and the property at the back.
The minister’s refusal to understand that inappropriate selection and continuing support for tenants - despite the fact that the housing stock is being damaged or not looked after or that the effects of their choice of tenants is flowing on to the other yards - is a shame because the decision to ignore those effects affect other people who, under normal circumstances, should enjoy the quiet amenity of their own property, or the property that they rent at market rates.
The minister said he will provide security guards and any other number of things. However, the fact is that a security guard is an admission of failure. If the police force, which all too often is called into the area, is a available and that police force - which is substantially bolstered in Alice Springs by government spending in getting police officers on the ground - is not capable of dealing with the issues, so much so that the minister has to then arrange for private security guards to visit his own housing stock, he clearly has a problem and acknowledges that he has a problem by hiring the security guards. However, what he is not prepared to do is demand that his housing stock - the housing stock of Territorians that he has under his care - needs to be protected, and that other people who live around that housing stock have a right to be protected from miscreant tenants.
The minister, by announcing the policies that he has, has abrogated his responsibility towards keeping good order in the community. He is throwing his hands in the air and simply saying he will provide a number for people to ring so the security guards can sort the problem out when it is happening. Problem: what powers does a security guard have? The answer is: no more powers than the law will give them. Security guards will not have an effective power of arrest. What access will the security guards get to the lists of names of people who should or not be in that housing stock? What power is there for a security guard to move on a guest, or 30 guests? None. Therefore, all that security guard will be able to do is suggest that people move on and, when they tell that security guard to get knotted, what will the security guard do? Call the police, which only means that the problem has gone on for longer.
A security guard is window dressing. The problem needs to be solved by more effective and courageous means. That is the real issue at point here: how courageous the minister is prepared to be. To be courageous, you have to make certain decisions. What decisions are available to the minister? Well, here is a decision: eviction. The people who were at that meeting the other day, generally, thought that eviction was a very good idea. It was suggested from the floor - I suggested it, and said that, should I become the Minister for Housing in the Northern Territory, I would not be averse to using it.
The point was, as the department quite correctly pointed out, that the Residential Tenancy Act required that people came and gave evidence before the tribunal to move people on. Well, those people told me that they were too scared to do that because they were terrified of retribution. That is not Australia, the Northern Territory or Alice Springs - or at least it should not be - that people are too frightened to go and give evidence in a court of law or in front of a tribunal. The response from the department was entirely proper: ‘Well, if you cannot come forward, we cannot break the law’. One does not expect them to. However, will the minister stand up here today and say that they will change the law to make eviction easier, or find a way around the problems that these tenants have? No, I certainly expect not.
I also point out that the minister has another option available. There are 290 dwellings in that particular area alone. That is a very high concentration of dwellings and, obviously, that concentration has led to a social problem. One of the answers is to change the nature of the housing stock. Sell it, is what I am talking about. What I would do, as the Minister for Housing, is identify the class of people who require housing. If the class of people who required housing needs a high level of management, then I would find a method by which - and formulas would have to be sorted out - that housing could be made available. However, that costs money. Where could I get that money from? By the sale of the housing stock. I would take inappropriate housing in inappropriate locations, find a solution that will fix the problem there by disposing of that stock, and using those funds to create stock which is suitable for the client base.
This is not the first time that this has been done in the Northern Territory. Where it was done the last time, under Housing 2003 policy, was where a review of the housing stock was done which found there were lots of three-bedroom houses, and what was identified as a need was one- and two-bedroom flats, that is exactly what was done. The three-bedroom houses were sold, and more one- and two-bedroom flats were built. What I am arguing and suggesting is exactly that: start using the housing or developing the housing stock in an appropriate fashion. However, this minister does not want to do that, because he is the great social engineer and he wants to find his own solutions by using the existing housing stock and telling a lot of other people to get knotted along the way.
The other thing that you can do is raise the police presence in the area. With all due respect to the police force, the superintendent who attended that meeting that night was clearly surprised - and said so - by the depth of feeling that was out there. That surprise is not shared by members on this side of the House, because we understood that there was an increasing problem in that area. Therefore, for quite some time, we have been saying that we would develop a police shopfront in the area, and look at staffing that shopfront for as long as it was necessary to contain the problems that were occurring in that area. I am not talking about building a full police station, but a shopfront which is policed and manned at appropriate times to concentrate on that area; to create civil order where it is needed.
It is the first duty of government to make a society safe. This minister’s decisions are having quite the opposite effect. He is not adhering to his first role as a minister of the Crown, which is keeping our society safe and keeping the peace and good order of the Northern Territory intact.
Every so often, it is the decision of a government to change their attitude and tack in relation to how they provide housing for people. Sadly, the last social experiment - which was the return to country stuff - sees many houses in the bush empty, right now as we speak. The minister talked about spending $850m on housing in the Northern Territory. Let us start filling up some of the outstations which were built at great expense to the taxpayer …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, your time has expired.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, let me place on record what happened in Alice Springs. I was approached by a couple of residents in the Larapinta area who had bought homes next to a complex that caused them a great deal of problems. I wrote to the minister asking if he would attend a public meeting. He sent two of his senior staff instead. I spoke to the police and their representatives came. I invited the Commissioner of Tenancies, who came down from Darwin. We had representatives from the Lhere Artepe elders. We had representatives from Aboriginal Housing and Information Referral Service. I asked the Mayor to chair the meeting, trying to make it as little a political meeting as possible, which probably did not work. Of course, we produced a flyer which the neighbours then distributed for us around the neighbourhood.
Let me say that the problems that were occurring in Larapinta at the time were not confined just to Larapinta. We had them in other parts of the Braitling electorate. As you all know, we have a high level of public housing in the Larapinta and Braitling areas. We had some hot spots; there is no doubt about it. One of the things that has helped solve hot spots has been the declaration of making some of the complexes for seniors only. That is a good thing and I am pleased the minister has done that, because that means the people living in those units at least feel secure.
However, the problem with the particular unit complex was the fact that there were a number of visitors coming into town who flowed around the neighbourhood, because there are many families who had connections there. It just created problems, because there did not seem to be any understanding of protocols of what you do when you come to visit people into town. It has a history of problems.
Since this minister has been Minister for Housing, I have written him 23 letters. That is a fair few on any one particular topic. I have had 62 contacts by constituents who have complained to the department. I do not include those ones who have come from the other electorates who have come to my office as well. I have only kept a record of those who are my constituents. You can see it was not a simple problem, and it was not just one or two people having a beef. It has been ongoing for some time and there have been, as I say, 62 contacts to my office.
To help resolve it, I called a meeting earlier in the year with the minister, who came. I only invited a few residents to that meeting, including one senior pensioner who was quite frightened of where she lives in a general complex. I wanted him to understand leaving pensioners in general complexes can, sometimes, put them at risk. I invited some of the people who had bought their homes next to complexes and were having a great deal of problems. We had one lady who lived in a complex in Elliot Street - and I am sure the minister knows that. She has left town since then, because she said she could not take it any longer. We were losing people from Alice Springs because they were just so unhappy with what was going on.
When you look at the history of the number of contacts and all the things that had occurred, calling the public meeting was sending a strong message to the minister saying: ‘Hey, you are not listening, you are not reacting. Your officers protect the department’. I can remember one of your advisors saying to me: ‘Oh no, no, that is not true’. It was true, and she had to come back and admit it later.
We had an incident of a fire in one of the Lyndavale flats. The person next door was a young girl with a little toddler. It happened late Friday afternoon. She rang the emergency housing saying: ‘I cannot stay in this flat; it is smoked filled, everything is damaged, I have a young child’. What was the response with that emergency number? ‘Oh we cannot do anything about it now, ring up on Monday’. What do you do in a case like that when you have such an unsympathetic landlord? I am a landlord. If I treated my clients, my tenants, like that they could easily take me to court and sue me for duty of care, I am sure.
It is those sorts of consistent things that have been going on: the denial of the problem, the lack of reaction, the placing of tenants in clusters in a neighbourhood who do not get on with each other. The minister knows we had people from Willowra. Willowra is not a very healthy community at the moment. Why put people who are going to fight each other, who do not get along with each other, in the same neighbourhood? Selection of tenants to go into houses has to be very carefully done.
At that meeting, at which there were nearly 200 on a count, a number of issues were brought up. I guess, minister, you have heard them over and over again. The police, at least at this meeting, acknowledged that they did not realise the depth of feeling of the residents. They acknowledged they were not aware of the safety concerns of young children going backwards and forwards from school. They were not aware of how neighbours were having such sleepless nights. Although they take a while to respond, they just were not aware of the problem, as such. That was a good message for them. However, what I found out at the same time was, even though they might turn up to something out at Larapinta, they then did not go back to Housing the next day and say: ‘Hey, we had a problem in your units, go around there and sort out what is happening, find out’. There was a bit of breakdown in communications there, and I believe now that protocol has been fixed. At least the police will inform Housing when they have had a call-out to a particular house or a group of flats.
It is those sorts of things, minister - the fact that people put in a complaint, they risk being threatened and abused by the troublemakers for doing that, and they are then not even given any feedback from the Department of Housing – which are probably the most frustrating things of all.
The tenants have a tenancy agreement, and this is what frustrates people. They have seen these tenants’ agreements. They are breached so many times but nothing seems to happen to pull them in line. If you want to get to the real end stage, which is eviction, you then ask these neighbours who complained to stand up in court and provide evidence against these people. That, of course, is a threatening situation for anyone. Therefore, of course, they do not like to do it. To be honest, minister, people do not want tenants to fail, because much of the problems that occur are actually from the itinerants, the people who are visiting. That is my problem: you put tenants in and you wait until they fail before you do anything. You really need to make sure when you put tenants in you give them the means to succeed in their tenancy. You give them the means to know their responsibilities and what they can do, and the means to say ‘No’ to their visitors.
Unfortunately, the grog signs at the moment that you have put up - which I agreed was a good idea - had no teeth. I have written to the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing asking him whether there is some way, if you have this sign in your house, ‘No grog allowed’, and the police are called around because you have a drunk, the police then can take the grog away or tip it out, similar to the 2 km law. I know it is a tricky one because it is on private property. I know it is tricky because you cannot say, ‘My house is a dry area’, and have the police enforce it. However, there must be some way - perhaps the way you are doing it with petrol - that police can respond to these neighbours who are tyring to keep their households reasonable.
Let us face it, minister: some of your tenants have voluntarily gone because they have been humbugged so much and are so distressed after receiving pressure from the neighbours, they have gone. We have to make sure we have a system whereby these people, if they have a good reason to have housing in town, do not fail. That is what we are saying: do not fail.
Minister, the Lhere Artepe people, who are the traditional owners, have said to me: ‘What would happen if we want out to Papunya and behaved like this? Do you think that would be accepted by those Pintupi people or the Pitjantjatjara?’ No, minister, it would not be. If they behaved like these people who come into town on their land on another community, I do not know what the consequences would be. However, it would not be allowed to happen; they would be banned, at least. It is the sort of behaviour that would not be tolerated in communities by a different group of people. Why should the Lhere Artepe people have to put up with that happening in their country?
That is something you will have to assist them with because they have already had a meeting saying: ‘Help us! We need to find a way to control this’. We have suggested that you run a campaign of telling people, informing people. Get the elders from out bush to come in, as you did up here, and talk to the Lhere Artepe people. At least get some communication going so that you do not have a situation that grows enormously because people do not understand their responsibilities and, culturally, some of these people just cannot say no. It is something, minister, that we really need to take care of.
I am pleased that you have started to react. I am pleased we had security patrols. On the first night, what happened? We had e-mails saying: ‘Hey, we had a peaceful night. It was great!’ So that was good. What tonight will bring, we will wait and see. What the weekend will bring, we will wait and see. It is something we have been trying to get you to do for a long time. In fact, you promised that back in April, and it has taken all this time to get it. That is good.
We will be waiting to see whether some of the other things you have promised happen. I know you have put additional staff down there, and that is the right thing to do because, obviously, you have an enormous problem in Alice Springs and you have a very small, skinny staff in the department there. It is important you give the staff more assistance and more people to get out there and help. You have to use some of the skills of the people in Aboriginal organisations that are already there. We know there is expertise there: people who communicate well and who want to make it work. So let us get them working together. Let us solve this problem.
Minister, what people said most of all is that they are not blaming the tenants; it has mainly been caused and fuelled by alcohol, and also by too many people. Let us face it; when you have, as we heard at that meeting, eight people in a two-bedroom unit, 20 people in a house, it is a health risk, minister, because we know where they go to the toilet. We know that rubbish accumulates in their yards. You cannot stand by and say: ‘We cannot tell them they cannot have visitors. We cannot tell them how many they can have. We cannot tell them how long they can stay’. From a health point of view, you can. That has to be addressed.
If Housing cannot do it on their own, let us bring in all the other agencies to help them. I understand the Housing people have an enormous workload. However, if they are not coping with it on their own, there are other agencies to help them. That is what we have to start seeing: a solution of working together to sort it out. People have sympathy for people who need housing. We know there is not enough housing out on communities. If there ever should be a priority from the federal government, it should be providing more housing on communities.
I spoke to one of the Lhere Artepe people, and we talked about the fact that people cannot drink out on the communities, that they are all dry areas. Of course, we both agreed that is a nonsense; they are not all dry areas. The amount of grog out on those communities that is coming in the back door – the member for Macdonnell smiles – they are awash with grog. Do not kid yourself; they are not dry communities. The trouble is they are doing it all the wrong way. I like a glass of wine with my meal, you like a beer with your meal. Why do we not start giving Aboriginal people that right? Why are we saying: ‘No, you cannot have it in your community, but if you sneak it in the back door and sell it for $100 a slab, that is fine’. For goodness sake, stop treating them in this protected way.
I will be asking the minister for liquor to review the dry areas and the legislation. It has been there for a long time and no one has ever really gone back to see if it is working. To be honest, the dry areas legislation is not working; it is creating all sorts of problems because people are not drinking in a sensible way. They are not learning to live with alcohol; it is as simple as that. Why do you not do a trial? Why do you not put some money into resourcing a social club? Give them a community centre; train the staff to work in a club situation; put a limit on the number of grogs. I meant to bring in the list I have of all the Top End centres that actually have club licences. They are all in the Top End. You do not have one in the Centre. You may say: ‘Oh well, that does not work up here, they are bad, etcetera’. However, tell me a licence that has not at some time, been revoked. Melanka, Bojangles, The Gap, they have all at some time breached their licence and had it revoked for a while.
Therefore, minister, why not think about doing this? Make sure it is a community centre where people can purchase a meal. Make sure it is a community centre where, perhaps, you have a film on once a week, or you have a darts competition, because you love darts - or something to make people feel that their community is worthwhile staying there. At the moment, they have nothing. They do not have enough houses, they do not have any social life, except the booze that comes in by the back door, so they come into town. We are at the stage where we have to start thinking a bit more laterally. We cannot keep being blinkered and going on the same way all the time. It is just not working, minister, and it is causing problems for not just Alice Springs, but I would say for Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin as well. We really need to think differently. Do not get locked into this mentality that we have. Let us start helping these people.
I feel sorry for the people who have bought homes in this area. They are right when they say their values have gone down. The sad part is they bought it because Larapinta is a beautiful area to live in. We would have the best views in town in that area. It is a great suburb; we have two great schools, a great preschool, a lovely oval, the Desert Park across the highway. It would be one of the best suburbs to live in. We do not have any alcohol outlets in Larapinta - none. All the alcohol is coming from other places. Of course, people like living in it, because it is a good place. However, unfortunately, it has all been a rather sad story over the last few months.
Minister, help people before they fail. Keep doing what you are doing, but do not stop, do not back off. Keep making sure we have some wins on the board, because that is what people will want to see. They will want to see that some of the initiatives that you have introduced actually work - not just for the people who live in the area, but visitors. Make sure they have protocols established so they do not come in and destroy the life of people living there already.
It is a sad thing, minister. I am sad that we had to get to the stage of having a public meeting. After 62 contacts with your department and 23 letters to you, you would have thought something would have gelled; somewhere a bell would have rung, and you would have said: ‘Okay, we have a problem’. It would have been nice if you had initiated it rather than have it come from me and residents. Minister, you have a hard job. Do not back off; do it.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in addressing this motion, I am amazed at the audacity and hypocrisy of the member for Macdonnell. Might I add that, in listening to the member for Braitling, there was, to me, a part of that hypocrisy also.
I want to make it clear from the outset that it seems to me, the story that has been portrayed in regard to public housing was never a problem prior to the 16 August 2001. If it was, all those problems were solved; they were all sorted out. Minister Lim, as the then minister for Housing, was on top of everything. There was no antisocial behaviour; everything was sorted out and it was great. When the member for Braitling was the minister for Housing, it was great - no problems in public housing throughout the Northern Territory; no problems whatsoever. However, when Labor won government on the 16 August, all the problems surfaced. I cannot accept that, nor can Territorians or the residents of Alice Springs, I would think.
I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear to the House and the residents of Alice Springs that the seeds of the current problems we are experiencing with humbug from unwanted visitors, and antisocial behaviour, has been planted as a result of the wilful neglect of the previous government. They were planted, at least in part, by the policies of politicians, as I said, who were ministers for housing under the previous government.
To understand the truth of the words of the member for Macdonnell’s motion, we must understand that it was the former government which sold off and allowed the wholesale neglect of Alice Springs public housing stock. It was they who allowed the destruction and damage. It was they who caused the current overcrowding, housing shortages, and homelessness through selling of Alice Springs public assets, which has led to acknowledged problems in Alice Springs. It was they who actively promoted the erosion of civil disorder through decades of starving the NT Police Service of police officers in Alice Springs. It was they who allowed a general run-down of the condition of housing stock throughout the Territory - an issue which is only now being addressed by us through our urban renewal program.
Let us look at the facts. Under the previous government, a total of 622 dwellings were sold in four years - I repeat, 622 were sold in four years. From 1977 to 2001, 46 one-bedroom dwellings; 57 two-bedroom dwellings; a massive 476 three-bedroom dwellings; and 43 four-bedroom dwellings were sold. This is a total of 1760 bedrooms missing from Alice Springs. And guess what? The current demand for public housing in Alice Springs is 641 dwellings or 1837 bedrooms. The mathematics is simple: if housing stock sold by the previous government had been maintained, current demand would be far less than 100 bedrooms. The result of this pillaging of housing stock is still being felt today. The wait time for a three-bedroom dwelling in Alice Springs is 39 months. This equates to 3 years and 3 months for a family in need waiting to be housed.
The former government - with two of its former Housing ministers present here today - will have you believe that it is about the more appropriate alignment of stock. The member for Braitling stated in this House, in her capacity as Housing minister, on the 14 October 1999, and I quote:
She also went on to say:
On 13 October 2004, the member for Braitling accused this government of not addressing the problem and trying to find a solution to it: ‘We are always putting a bandaid on it’. This comes from the former Housing minister who, under her care, saw the widespread rip-offs of housing stock in her own electorate.
Since the election of the Martin Labor government, Territory Housing has been responding to the local community to act against tenants responsible for antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. There has been a general indication that much of the antisocial behaviour relates to visitors rather than actual tenancies. There is also a need for tenants to manage their visitors and deal with them accordingly. It is rarely, as the member for Macdonnell claims, inappropriate tenants, but unwanted and inappropriate behaviour of visitors.
Minor complaints are often resolved immediately by tenancy staff contacting the tenants. Since July 2002, there have been 12 complaints to the minister regarding antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. As at 29 November 2004, 12 tenancies in Larapinta are currently identified as having antisocial behaviour issues and are being monitored. Territory Housing takes these issues very seriously. While members opposite claim otherwise, all they are really doing is attacking hardworking public servants who work in stressful jobs and, who, I believe, have their hearts in the right place. I would advise the opposition to stop belting up on them. They know the problems. They are your fellow citizens working their guts out to make Alice Springs a better place for the whole community. As public servants, they do not have the luxury of grandstanding while making cheap shots.
The Antisocial Behaviour Action Plan details both the immediate and medium- to long-term actions Territory Housing is taking to minimise incidences of antisocial behaviour in public housing. I will explain the action that has been taken in Alice Springs. A new security contract has been awarded for nightly security patrols of large complexes identified as hot spots, and to attend other areas as they are called. This will operate seven days a week, 13 hours a day. This service is being run by a local company that commenced two nights ago. The firm, Shane Rider Security is contracted for three years for this work and will be reporting to the department weekly, with daily incident reports to both my department and the police. While no complaint calls have been made in those first two nights, they have reported four incidents, all of which were resolved, including with police assistance in one case to remove an unwanted visitor.
A radio campaign in remote communities is being developed to raise tenants’ and potential housing applicants’ awareness of their responsibilities as tenants and neighbours, and of the behaviour expected of people visiting Aranda country.
Two additional staff will be employed by January to provide dedicated case management and urban living skills support for problem tenancies and new tenancies. An indigenous community liaison officer has recently been employed to work with tenants, tenancy staff, and support agencies to address issues as they arise. There has been implementation of the good neighbour policy to provide information on rights and responsibilities of tenants and advise on who to contact for assistance when problems arise. This information is available to the general public from Territory Housing offices and on the Internet. The Keith Lawrie complex is undergoing extensive redevelopment and redesign to reduce opportunities for antisocial behaviour.
Public housing applicants continue to be required to provide references prior to allocation. For applicants without references, three month probationary leases are granted in some cases, or housing deferred until applicants are able to demonstrate ability to successfully adhere to a tenancy agreement. The application process is being strengthened to ensure public housing applicants understand the requirements for living in public housing. Interpreters will be used for this purpose. Where necessary, applicants will be assisted to prepare for a successful tenancy.
A dedicated project officer, jointly funded by Territory Housing and IHANT, is being recruited to develop a robust Urban Living Skills Program that will be delivered to people who need it. Territory Housing has a strong relationship with police to ensure intelligent and proactive management of hot spots and a focus on reducing disturbances.
Housing alternatives for people who are not able to live in public housing, or people who may need additional support to maintain a successful tenancy, are being developed and supported; for example, the establishment of specific accommodation for renal patients is being investigated.
Territory Housing continues to work closely with the Community Harmony strategy, which provides successful services such as the Night and Day Patrols and Return to Home program. Territory Housing continues to strengthen the working relationship with police and Tangentyere Day/Night Patrols who cooperate in patrolling and monitoring identified hot spots.
Complaints regarding antisocial behaviour are fully investigated by Territory Housing. Tenants are advised where a complaint has been made about them, and the consequences if their behaviour does not change. All complainants receive a letter from Territory Housing acknowledging the complaint and detailing what actions will follow. Eviction action is pursued in situations that cannot be resolved through focussed tenancy management, mediation, counselling or police intervention.
To evict a tenant, Territory Housing is required to provide evidence in court. Courts do not take eviction lightly and the onus is on Territory Housing to provide sufficient evidence of repeated interference with the reasonable peace or privacy of neighbours. This evidence may be in the form of police reports of visits to the dwelling, letters of complaint, records of verbal complaints made, and witness testimony. Territory Housing is bound by the decision made by the magistrate. While Territory Housing will continue to pursue eviction where necessary, we also respect the rights of the tenant. Eviction is not always the answer as, in some cases, it is not the tenant who is causing disturbances but a visitor whom they are unable to control. It would be unjust to punish the tenant and reduce them to homelessness when they are as much a victim as the rest of the neighbourhood. Nor would this solve the problem, as the tenant would be removed and, possibly, homeless and the visitor could just move to another house to cause problems for another tenant.
That is not the action called for by the member for Macdonnell, who stated on 18 November 2004:
My question to the member for Macdonnell is: where are you going to put them? Public housing is often the housing of last resort targetted to the most in need in our community. Is he really saying that public housing problems will be improved through greater homelessness? During the same period, he went on to say that the CLP government will solve the housing problem of Alice Springs by stating that they will:
This is exactly what the previous government did not do. In the period 1997 to 2001, they did not replace a single dwelling. They sold off the housing and sold out residents of Alice Springs. Not a single cent of the $34m raised during this period went into public housing in Alice Springs. The previous government effectively stole $34m of assets from the people of Alice Springs.
For the information of members opposite, the highest waiting list in Alice Springs is for three- and four-bedroom dwellings. What kind of accommodation are you suggesting? Second-rate accommodation for indigenous clients? Is it his solution to solve housing problems by increasing homelessness? We know that, under the previous government, you ripped off the people of Alice Springs for their housing stock and, if re-elected, you will do it again because you have not learnt. Nothing has changed; your policies are the same. You have learnt nothing.
The Martin government has taken action. We have informed our tenants and the wider community about our rights and responsibilities of tenants for the Good Neighbourhood Policy. Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, minister.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I am pleased the minister did have a chat, because I would like to comment on a couple of things he has raised. I will do that eventually. However, it is appropriate that this matter be debated.
Two ministers - the Minister for Central Australia and the Minister for Housing - were not at the meeting ...
Mr Henderson: They were in Cabinet.
Ms CARNEY: They say that they were in Cabinet, as does the member for Wanguri - who should be quiet during this debate, I would have thought. However, two ministers were not there. I cannot recall their apologies being given. Since they were not there, then they might have the courage to call another meeting, and we will see how courageous they are. If they are fair dinkum about actually listening to the people of Alice Springs they might decide to call a meeting so that they can hear with their own ears the depth of feeling that was at that meeting.
I was standing at the back. I did a pretty thorough count, and 220 or thereabouts was what I came up with. I have never been to a public meeting with that many people, nor have I been at a meeting where people had such a depth of feeling. I have never seen anything like it. Even though it related to Larapinta residents, the fact is that there were some people from the Gillen area - that is my electorate - there. The issues that are in Larapinta are not confined to Larapinta; they are in the heart of Alice Springs generally.
I was amazed to hear the sorts of the things people were saying. People were not getting any sleep and, as the member for Macdonnell said, someone’s child was having bed wetting problems. People were talking about how their property prices had gone down, and they were very concerned that they were continuing to go down.
I am a regular doorknocker. I reckon I know my electorate pretty well. Three years ago, the state of the public housing in the electorate and the tenants was not an issue that came up very much.
Ms Carter: Hear, hear! The same in my electorate.
Ms CARNEY: It is now a ‘top of mind’ issue. It is in the top three. Three years ago, with hand on heart, I could not have said that - and I stress, I am a regular doorknocker. I note the member for Port Darwin has a similar experience. Therefore, it does not come as a surprise that the meeting was called and that there were so many people there.
When I am out doorknocking or, in fact, even when I am just driving around Alice Springs, I can see the houses that are public housing with bad tenants. You can do that without even knocking on the door. They are the ones with not a blade of grass in their front yard, with rubbish everywhere, and the house is literally filthy. That is before you get to the front door. When I do go doorknocking, I knock on every door unless I feel unsafe. There is no one’s door I do not go to. As I approach a public housing dwelling where I know - where you can tell it is going to be an interesting experience - I feel for the neighbours. I go up to the door and, because you can tell as you are entering the front gate that the tenants are pretty ordinary, when they open door, it is confirmed. Occasionally, people have invited me in.
Why is that, under this government, those people are not evicted when, especially their neighbours, are complaining about the smell, the filth, the appearance and the noise that is coming from those houses? The minister, with all of his resources in government, with all of his ministerial staff, surely would know that this is happening. I am a citizen of Alice Springs, obviously, but you do not need to be a rocket scientist to work out what the problem is. I noted that the minister referred to the fact that people could be evicted. I will ask him how many people have been? As I am going through my electorate, there are an awful lot of people who cannot possibly be fulfilling their requirements under their tenancy agreement; it is just impossible.
The Labor approach is house at any cost; give people housing at any cost. Our approach is no, no, no; there has to be some level of obligation or responsibility. If you do not, or are unable or unwilling, to play and live by the rules, then you do not deserve to live in public housing. It is as simple as that. There are alternatives, and the member for Macdonnell spoke about them. I do not know why it is that the Australian Labor Party grapples with this concept. I have my suspicions but, unfortunately, time will prevent me from going into them.
The minister referred to this entire situation as a bit of humbugging. This is not a bit of humbugging when people come in - family members in many cases - and cause difficulties. Sometimes, it is the tenants themselves. It is more than humbugging; it is causing the people who live nearby endless amounts of distress.
I challenge the Minister for Central Australia and the Minister for Housing to call a public meeting. They will not get 220 people; they will get 440 - the numbers will double; such is the depth of feeling. I put up that challenge, and I also invite the minister to tell me how many people have been evicted, because I do not think many have been. Such is the cringe of this government that I do not think many have been, because they adhere to the philosophy house at any cost.
This government, like all governments, has a responsibility to all of its citizens, not just some of them. For the minister to ask the question: ‘Well, what are you going to do with public housing tenants? Where are the going to go?’ - there are solutions. Equally, what he forgot to address – I will withdraw that, I suspect he deliberately ducked it. Forget about the public housing tenants for a minute; think about the house on either side and behind. I, like you, Madam Speaker, have had numerous contacts from constituents. Similarly, I have had numerous contacts with Territory Housing. People tell me that they get rubbish, nappies, thrown over the fence; noise at all hours of the night; screaming, yelling, fighting; filth, the stench - it is just disgusting. This would not be allowed to happen anywhere else in this country - anywhere else in Australia – and, yet, members on the other side stand by and say house at any cost. It is not desirable to house at any cost when the neighbours are being driven out of their mind and out of Alice Springs as a result of the declining property market and of putrid, horrible, screaming tenants next door who do nothing other than make the lives of their neighbours a living hell. The minister does not seem to understand the issue. It is: look beyond just the tenants. You have, minister, a responsibility to other people who live around them.
What has also happened in the last three years is that now constituents are ringing me saying that there might have been a couple of public housing dwellings in the street. When one lot of tenants move out, they ring me and ask me what I can do to ensure that better tenants move into the new house …
Mr Ah Kit: To ensure no blackfellas move in!
Ms CARNEY: That better tenants move into the new …
Mr Ah Kit: To ensure no blackfellas move in!
Ms CARNEY: You should do me the courtesy of listening, you slug! Listen!
Mr Ah Kit: You red neck dog whistler!
Ms CARNEY: Just listen, you might learn something!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: Now!
Madam SPEAKER: Well, are you going to call a point of order on the minister?
Dr BURNS: No, just calling him a slug. It is not ...
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, and minister, you restrain yourself.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You can always tell - and I said it yesterday - when they get twitchy on the other side, because they resort to either inane comments or yelling. I am happy to match the minister any day of the week in that regard.
As I was saying, people ring me and ask what I can do because their families do not like living in a street with terrible public housing tenants. Do they mind living in a street with good public housing tenants? No way. They are very happy to live with good public housing tenants, but they do not want to tolerate - and nor should they, these people who come to the desert for whatever reason; to bring up their kids, get a job, live happily ever after - their streets and their homes become nightmarish owing to the appalling conduct of some public housing tenants.
I do not know whether I need to draw pictures for this minister, but in his response he demonstrated a very obvious inability to understand this problem. He should come and live in my electorate. He should go and live, perhaps, in the member for Braitling’s electorate and see what it is like. I have said this was a top of mind issue; now I am thoroughly of that view. There is one example and, since the minister started to talk about Aboriginal people - and I note the member for Macdonnell did not refer to Aboriginal people - but since the minister introduced it, I will tell you one of the saddest stories I have heard. It is a person in your electorate, Madam Speaker, but there are no boundaries in Alice Springs. Sometimes, people in my electorate see you and the same applies to me. This young woman, with a 16-year-old daughter, lives in a block of units in Alice Springs. She has told me that she and her daughter are the only white people in that complex. I do not believe that is sensible allocation. This mother told me, as her 16-year-old daughter was walking in …
Mr Henderson: Allocate properties based on race.
Ms CARNEY: Member for Wanguri, if you have a contribution, I would be very happy to hear it. You have kids, you might be interested in hearing this one.
As her 16-year-old daughter came home from St Phillip’s at 4.30 pm, there was a bunch of Aboriginal housing tenants outside. She and the mother heard, as the 16-year-old girl was walking past, one of the Aboriginal blokes say: ‘I would not mind a piece of that white meat’. If that does not distress and anger you - I do not know - then you are completely devoid of emotions and conscience. I find that story stomach turning and, I might say, very upsetting. These people also had some airconditioning problems recently. I know that an offer was made to this mother and her daughter to go and stay with some friends. That was last week when we were experiencing 40C heat. The mother said that she felt so vulnerable in her house - in other words, she thought it would be broken into - that she would not take up the offer to go and live somewhere else, even for a couple of nights, because she was sure her house would be broken into. That is not humbugging, that is not appropriate and yet these are the sorts of stories that are coming through and that this minister is just dismissing.
Mr Henderson: Never happened when the CLP was in government.
Ms CARNEY: I pick up that interjection: never happened under the CLP. Garbage! You give me the time of a public meeting where 220 people turned up to voice, in very angry terms, their dissatisfaction with you lot, the government, and the state of affairs in Alice Springs. Give me the date, member for Wanguri. Come on, you are such a smart alec …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, we could keep on going on about this issue. It is appropriate that it has been raised as a matter of public importance. The minister is devoid of answers. He talks about the security guards. I share the member for Macdonnell’s comments. What powers will they have? He mentioned that it might simply be ‘move on’ powers. Well, that reminds me of the ‘move on’ laws that this government was so keen to get rid of. ‘Oh, we do not like move on laws, they are no good’, and yet their own security patrol will probably only be able to move people on. Not good enough, minister.
I challenge you to call another meeting. There are a number of issues. I might just put this to you, minister: how do you feel about 19 applications issued by prisoners for public housing? The member for Macdonnell wanted to raise that. I invite you to also to make some comment about that in due course. In any event, don’t you dare come in here and accuse the member for Braitling and others of hypocrisy - don’t you dare! Don’t you dare accuse us of hypocrisy.
You mob, if you are serious, will call a public meeting. You will get on to this problem and you will do what you are paid to do; that is, be responsible for all citizens, not just some of them.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I have a pretty good flavour of what would have been said at that meeting. It is not the sort of meeting that, typically, in the history of these issues in Alice Springs, has resolved too much at all. It is probably a starting point in that it allows people to vent a whole lot of feeling and anxiety about antisocial behaviour which is, no doubt, there.
What is probably faintly silly about this is that it has become reconstructed as a narrow public housing issue. It is not. The reason it is not is that we have been talking about and acting on these issues in town ever since I have been in Central Australia - over 20 years - that I am familiar with. I can remember times when over 200 river campers would get into drunken brawls. I can remember occasions when people were trying to carry out sorry business following the death of a family member in the river bed, and things turned ugly because of drunks coming in or because the purpose of the gathering was misunderstood. I can remember Gerry Baddock, that calm and rational lady who had some terrible problems with creek campers - in her case, at Charlie Creek. They camped right outside her property.
We know there has been a longstanding history of antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. It is pissing on trees, foul language, littering, and vandalism; we know that. When we came to government, there was still a very active and large population of people camping in the river bed. They are not there today. There was a large population about 18 months to two years ago in the CBD carrying out violent feuds, mostly armed with knives and clubs. That was going on right outside all of our offices, if you cared to look through the window, and that is not there now. I wonder what has happened.
What has happened is that a lot of people are looking for a solution to whatever the pattern is on the day that can alleviate the effect on, not only the town as a whole, but also on the more vulnerable people who are caught up in these antisocial gatherings around the town.
In the last couple of years, we have seen some significant changes in the pattern of this type of behaviour and its distribution around town. What we have seen is no more river bed; it then went to the town camps. The town camps then took action, as they must, to try and keep some semblance of law and order around the town camps. It has now gone increasingly to public housing - initially Keith Lawrie flats - and now it is spreading out into areas around the town.
We know that, and we are following that pattern to try to deal with it as it occurs in each place. I will be calling a meeting when I get back. It will not be the sort of meeting that the member for Araluen is talking about, because we know people are upset about these sorts of activities. Black, white or brindle, if you have a bad neighbour, it is not a good experience. I had a terrible neighbour at one stage when I lived in Melbourne. Nappies flew over the fence and there was incessant noise all day. Guess what it was? It was a day care centre. From our point of view, there was no such thing as a peaceful day at home because you had screaming and yelling and nappies flying over the fence.
The answer today is the same as the answer was two years ago when we were dealing with river campers; 18 months ago when we were dealing with homeless kids and violence in the CBD; a year ago when we were dealing with antisocial behaviour impacting on not only the town camps, but on other camping areas around town. Whether it was in the public parks or up in the hills behind people’s houses, and the answer is always the same: we have to get people together who will search for a solution that will impact on that. Some of that actually requires some help from the people who have authority in the various indigenous groups in Central Australia.
In many cases, Lhere Artepe is not going to be able to impact on behaviour of people coming into town. It needs some support from the remote communities and from the people of authority in their families. It might come as a surprise to the proponents for action here tonight that there is a huge level of concern about this in the remote communities. They do not want to see young adults coming in and getting into this merry-go-round of violence and drinking. What it amounts to out bush is that you have this continuous round of either visiting hospital, going to funerals and sorry business, and seeing the whole fabric of the family come under enormous strain. They do not want that. There are many people out there who want to help. That is where we can start looking for solutions. It is not about public housing; it is about antisocial behaviour by people coming into town, and believing that that sort of code of behaviour is an acceptable code of behaviour. It is not acceptable to their families; it is not acceptable to the general community. We have to find a raft of actions that can be taken to deal with this new form of the same old problem in Alice Springs.
I will call a meeting all right. As Minister for Central Australia, I am more than happy to call a meeting of people who have provided solutions in a constructive way in the past, and will provide solutions to the problem to hand. We will support what the Minister for Housing has already put in place, with the measures put forward during his contribution to this debate. We will look for other people who can intercede, whether it be the police through some actions they can take or Tangentyere Council, which can take some actions through their Night Patrol and the like. We will look for ways of perhaps providing more guidance to people in maintaining a household. We will for some of the authorities available to us from the communities and within the families of the people who are coming into town.
What we cannot do is go following this problem around and bulldoze all the public housing that they happen to want to move into. This is just Looney Tunes …
Ms Carney: Would you evict anyone?
Dr TOYNE: We have Cawood Court. The two of you, there you were saying: ‘Right, bring the bulldozers in’. Now look at the development there. Look at the development of the city. It is a fantastic development, and you would have lost the whole lot.
Here we go. Keith Lawrie flats – away we go again. Caterpillar Carney: ‘Let us do the Gaza Strip. Send in the bulldozers. Let us get rid of that lot because, look, there are people drinking out on the lawn there. So, get rid of the buildings’.
It is an insane way to try and deal with this problem. It is not about houses or about flats; it is about antisocial behaviour which requires a strong and holistic approach to it from all of the government agencies and the non-government organisations that have responsibility for such matters in the town.
I have a lot of faith in the town. The member for Braitling was one of the ones who stood during the Alice Springs parliament, as I remember, and reminded people – to her credit – that Alice Springs should not be talked down and bagged for some sort of political capital. I believe you have to have faith in our town to find these solutions and work toward a community that belongs to everyone and does not depend on us establishing this little enclave: ‘We are going to protect it from these black hordes pouring in from the bush’. It is not going to work that way. We have to find a way of living harmoniously together. If that means doing something powerful about antisocial behaviour, count me in, because I know a lot of …
Ms Carney: What might you do?
Dr TOYNE: Unlike you, I could probably name hundreds of the people who are in that situation in Alice Springs from my electorate. I know them and their families by name, and I know that their families want to do something about this problem as well. This gets down to human lives; it gets down to the stresses that go back to the family when a family member is stuffing up their life. That is what the bottom line is in the indigenous interest in this.
However, we have a much stronger and a higher interest as a town to make this thing work. We are not going to be able to tell our fellow Australian citizens that they have no right to live there; go back to where they belong. They belong where they choose to belong. They live in Australia and, as long as they obey the laws of the country and of the Territory, they are welcome to live anywhere. We cannot solve this problem by saying: ‘You do not belong here, go back home’. Who is going to make that judgment?
Ms Carney: If you muck up, you do not belong.
Dr TOYNE: You do not belong here unless you live the way we think everyone should live …
Ms Carter: Hear, hear!
Ms Carney: Exactly.
Dr TOYNE: Hardly a blade of grass is what the member for Araluen used as one of the criteria of someone who does not belong in Alice Springs - hardly a blade of grass. Look, the Arid Zone Institute is going around saying: ‘Do not grow grass, do not grow grass; we use too much water’. I do not know if a lawn is going to be one of the criteria for allowing people to live in Alice Springs? Please!
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, settle down!
Dr TOYNE: The criterion is that the people live a law-abiding and a harmonious existence in their neighbourhood.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs Miller: That is exactly right.
Mr Elferink: But it is not happening.
Dr TOYNE: Okay, we have agreed on that. Let us have a look at how we can do it. We will get all the people together who need to contribute to the solution, alongside what the Housing Minister has already put forward. We will have a meeting. It will not be a meeting to spread fear and loathing around the place. It will not be a meeting on a Tuesday, because we are always in Cabinet. It was very clever to call a meeting on a Tuesday, because you knew we would not be there. Unfortunately for you, we had our staff there and we knew exactly what was going on. We will not be going in that direction.
It is good to hear the level of concern around the community; that is a good starting point. However, it is not the solution. The solution is to get people together who can put the programs together, bring the people together who need to make an impact on the problem. We will do that, and the Minister for Housing has made a good start on it. We will build on that. Let us find an answer. I am sure the town will, and I will be in there to do my best on it as well.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be put.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, we do not have motion. Thank you, everyone, for the debate.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: Before you start speaking, may I make a few comments because I have guests waiting for me. I just want to extend the compliments of the season to all members here tonight, and hope that you have a restive period of Christmas and January with your families. I hope you come back refreshed next year.
I want to send the compliments of the season to the staff of the Legislative Assembly.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: As you all know, they do a great job looking after us as best they can. To Kathy Cercarelli, my assistant, who always seems so pleasant and unruffled – she is amazing and she just gets the job done so quickly. To the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk who share their expertise and knowledge with us; to our Clerk Assistant, Gaddy, who is there prompting us along and making sure we say the right words; and all the staff in this building who are associated with making sure the business of the House runs smoothly. We need to thank the Hansard staff. They are up there often unseen, but they do a tremendous job under the guidance of Helen Allmich. I appreciate what they do.
We also have an administrative component that you do not really see, but they are the ones behind the scenes making it all work for us, and I thank them. The drivers always look after me with politeness and they are very obliging. I hope they do not get called out on new year’s day or Christmas day by any of the ministers. I hope they are allowed to enjoy their Christmas, too.
I want to make special mention of my electorate officer, Robyn, who has been with me for 10 years now. Her knowledge of the community and contribution to my life in the electorate is really great. To my family, who have stood by me through what has been a rather difficult year for me, I am looking forward to having Christmas with my four grandchildren and the rest of my family. I know that everyone here deserves to have a good Christmas. We might see you all back here next year, and who knows what next year will bring. Merry Christmas to you all.
Members: Merry Christmas, Madam Speaker!
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak about Did Smith, who was the very reason why I ended up in Alice Springs and why I am here today. In 1981, my then young associate and assistant in a medical practice in South Australia asked that we come to live and work in Alice Springs. The reason why he wanted to come to Alice Springs was his father-in-law, Did Smith. Did and Dawn had been asking him to bring their daughter back to live in Alice Springs for a long time. Finally, we did and, when I came to Alice Springs for the very first time, I stayed at Did’s home at Lindsay Avenue. From there, I got the medical practice in Alice Springs going.
Did passed away on 10 October this year. An obituary was written in the Centralian Advocate and I would like to paraphrase some of the information that it contained:
This was written on 15 October.
When I met him, Did had Mt Allan as his cattle property and he was semi-retired. Half the time he lived in town, the other half of the time he was out at Mt Allan looking after cattle. It was soon after I moved to Alice Springs that he sold Mt Allan and then, essentially, he retired full-time. That is when I believe his interest in horse racing was developed. At the service, Steven Smith, his son, read out a poem which I would like to read into Hansard. If I cannot finish it, I ask that the remaining part of the poem be incorporated into Hansard. I seek leave to have this incorporated into Hansard, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Leave granted.
Did has left behind Dawn, whom I know very well. I saw her and his three children Stephen, Virginia and Tracy the day of the funeral. Virginia and Tracy now live in Darwin and work, in fact, with David Meadows, my young doctor associate who is now the AMA President in the Northern Territory. Stephen is married and lives in Alice Springs and works in the tourism industry.
With the little time I have left, I would like to also convey my Christmas wishes to everybody in this Chamber: my colleagues, members of parliaments on this side of the House, as well as members of government. Over 12 months, we have had lots of argie-bargies in this room and, sometimes, it makes it hard to understand how we try to be pleasant to each other at times, and other times we just cannot seem to bring ourselves to even be nice to each other. However, maybe that is the result of hard politics; that we fight hard to bring our points of view to this House and try to win our arguments. Well, 12 months of hard arguments will always create feelings that, sometimes, might not be as good as can be. I, at least, believe that for Christmas time that we put those differences aside and feel, for at least a moment, some positive feelings for each other.
I would also like to pass my regards to all the staff of the Legislative Assembly, from the Clerk himself down to everybody who has worked so very hard to support us in this Chamber - for Mr Gadd in the back office down there. My regards go mostly to this lady who is sitting here in the front desk, Vicki Long, whom I harangue quite regularly about IT services, she being the Director of Corporate Services who supports our needs in this Chamber and also in our electorate offices - wherever we have our electorate offices. I take my hat off to you for your patience in dealing with us. There are others, like Terry Hanley, who is the secretary of the PAC. I have worked with him very well, along with my past workings with people like Rick Gray who, sadly, has decided to retire from this Assembly.
Most of all, amongst all the work that we have done in parliament, the biggest support comes from family and friends. Without the support of my everlasting loyal wife, Sharon, who manned the home fires, as it is described, very patiently - I spend a lot of time away from home. Working as a member distant away from the state capital, it is not an easy job and, usually, the family carries the brunt of the difficulty. When we travel and work, meeting with lots of people, we are captured by the work itself and tend not to worry so much about time being away from home. However, the person who is left behind has an empty house to look after, and it makes life a bit hard for them. I thank her for being the ever-supportive wife. Let us hope we have a good Christmas together in the next few weeks. At least we see my children - who are now scattered around the country - once a year, which is a good thing.
I would like to thank the members of my branch executive of Alice Springs, who have been very supportive throughout the year, and my electorate officer, Caroll, and my substitute electorate officers when Caroll is away sick or up here on seminars - Chris Cope and Christine Potts - who have been around to help me whenever there is a need.
For the people who work in the Leader of the Opposition’s office: Kylie, who has been away having a baby; Tasma; Renee; our media staff, Lyrella and Gary; and, most of all, Mr Greg Weller, who is our Chief of Staff. He has been most helpful in the work that we have done here.
Merry Christmas, everybody. Come back safely next year, and we will start again in the debates.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, 2004 has been the most productive year for Parap Primary School in my electorate, and its school council. I suppose, at times, the year has been challenging, at times frustrating, but a real tribute in the end, to the contribution and commitment of the school’s teachers and parents and, of course, students. The school redevelopment was the focus of many meetings over 2004. Some of them were pretty volatile, but agreement was reached about the school’s redevelopment. I would certainly like to say well done to all those involved.
The school council this year is a very hardworking council, tackling a whole range of tasks, including two major fundraisers in the year - the sports night and the fete. They have done a school action plan; they have been responsible for the running of the outside school hours program, and the setting up of a task force to examine the viability of an early childhood community day care centre combination to be developed in Parap. They have been very busy and my thanks go to the members of the council, to the principal, Dr Mick Myers, deputies Barry Kepert and Liza Day, the chair of the council, Tanya Fong Lim, and Iain Summers, David Moodie, Theona Mitaros, Tania Lawrie, Monica van den Nieuwenhof, Allan Manton, Jude Ellen, Andy Bartels, Karen Brown, Philip Roberts, Amanda Buckley, Lillian Lesueur, Nathan Taylor, Geoff Gillman and Kerry Hudson. I hope everyone’s prepared for another exciting year at Parap Primary for next year.
While I am talking about Parap, long-serving teacher and deputy, Liza Day, recently retired after 34 years of service to teaching. Liza began teaching in Melbourne in 1970 and moved to the Territory in 1977, where she has taught at a variety of schools here. However, the bulk of her teaching has been at Parap Primary - 18 years of that. She was senior teacher from 1986 till 1990, and then assistant deputy principal and deputy until 2004. I must say that I am very proud to say that, in the time that my children went through Parap and that I have known Liza, she has become a friend. She certainly demonstrated that she is a teacher with great commitment and talent; much respected and loved - and I say the word ‘loved’ quite consciously - by both students and parents. That is really no mean feat.
Liza strongly believes in teaching as a profession, and the importance of education capturing the young. Therefore, she has focussed her teaching years on teaching those in primary. She has, and will continue to have, endless patience with her young charges.
Liza managed, in her time at Parap, to be involved in so much of the school’s activities - whether it was through sport and being involved in sports night, after school sports, as well as her passion for netball, or in wonderful school events like the now notorious end-of-year Parap school concert. Year after year, students amaze their parents with quite wonderful performances - singing, dancing, reciting, writing and performing plays – all great fun and superbly brought together by Liza Day.
I cannot talk about Liza without talking about netball, as I mentioned, and her love of the game. It was and is a contagious love, because many of her students were encouraged to play as well, and joined local teams across Darwin. I would like to thank her for the inspiration she has been to my daughter, Chloe, who now - I can say with much pride - is doing netball at the Institute of Sport. She loves it, except getting up at 5.30 am on Mondays.
Parap School students, parents and teachers are enormously sad that Liza has retired. We will miss her and her expertise and professionalism. All wish her well in the next phase of her career, whatever she and Alan decide to do.
Another one of my schools is Stuart Park Primary. What is characteristic of Stuart Park Primary is that they are such a supportive and happy mob to work with. The school council is the backbone of the community and consists of Ian O’Reilly, who is the chair, assisted by Nea Harrison, secretary, and Carol Metcalf, who is the Treasurer. All the council members contribute and I would like to acknowledge them by name: Matt Kelly, Alexandra Mullins, Louise Bennett, Tina Dureau, Ian Redfearn, Linda Parnham, Pam Tregear, assisted by staff members Bernie Bree, who is the principal, Judi Samuels, Denise Vincent, Donna Harding, and Ros Coggan from the preschool.
This year has been a packed year for the Stuart Park Primary School Council, and I will only be able to cover some of the highlights of what has been a very busy year. The school council, for example, promoted community input into the secondary school review and compiled a school response. They have undertaken several very productive fundraising activities which have provided funds for a new reading scheme for early childhood, a new playground for upper primary, and funding professional development for teachers to attend Tribes training. Tribes is the process to which the school aims to promote a culture that maximises student potential and human development. Well done to Stuart Park Primary and the council, and congratulations on a terrific effort.
The annual school concert was once again a huge success, with over 100 community members attending.
The school also this year has seen the development of a three-year school development plan. This was done in consultation with staff and community members and will be taken to the new council in 2005 for ratification. Most importantly, the school council has always been there to provide support for staff and students of the school to improve learning outcomes, and to ensure a safe and productive learning environment.
Of course, the best present for Stuart Park Primary at the end of this year was to find out, after some intense lobbying, that they have one of the final allocations of a special education teacher. Principal Bernie Bree is delighted by that. I thank my colleague, the minister for Education, for recognising the need of Stuart Park.
Darwin High School is the electorate’s public secondary school, and it has been another very busy year for what is the Territory’s largest comprehensive secondary school, with over 1200 students. Working with government to plan for the $8m-plus first stage development of the school took many hours this year, as did the school’s response to the secondary education review. That response from the school was a very comprehensive and professional one. Also the tenders for the school’s redevelopment will be let in January, and there is a lot of excitement about that.
The school, this year, has also developed all new school policies, a new strategic plan, a four-year computer upgrade program, many professional development initiatives, and has hosted, as usual, overseas visitors, delegations and exchange students. I would certainly like to congratulate this year’s new principal, Marion Guppy, and her deputies and her staff for really a fine years work.
Congratulations also to the school council chaired by Peter Garrigan. Also on school council are Jan MacPherson, Graeme Lewis, Steve Carter, Greg Bonson, Janet Farnell, Derek Farrell, Sue Gleed, Charlie Manolis, Chris Nagy, and Marie-Louise Pearson. The round table members are Emma Walsh, James Farnell, and Jana Lai. Staff members also include Ruth Rynehart, Eileen Bell, Ann Hosking, Sally Crawford, Tony Copland, Marion Guppy and Penny Biessbarth. Other members and subcommittee members include Anne Disney, Jenny White, Penny McIntyre, Laurence Ah Toy, Tony Fitzgerald, Steve Margetic, Steve Southwood and Ian Winch. They did a great job this year. They had some challenges, and look forward to the challenges of the school redevelopment actually happening in 2005.
Since the redistribution that we have had across the electorates in the year, Fannie Bay now has another school - which I am delighted with - and that is St John’s College. I have already made my first visit there as the local member, and was delighted to meet Sister Phillipa, the other teachers and a number of their students.
Another feature of my electorate are two very active residents associations, one is the Parap Residents Association and the other is Stuart Park. I would like to talk about what they have done over this year.
One of the joys of my electorate is the active sense of community and community involvement, and one of the key groups is the Parap Residence Association. I would like to mention the members by name because I fully recognise the effort they put in to our suburb. Congratulations and thanks to, Monica van den Nieuwenhof, Wendy and John Macdonald, Ash Dally, Sharon Wilson, Rick Edmonds, Anna Zahn, Betty Vogel, Jean Vickery, Bobbie Thompson, Ray Taylor, Juliet Murphy, Greg McNamara, Dr Arun Mahajani, Jessica Horn, Robyn Lesley, Louise Jones, John Gilbert, Claire George, Helen Galton, Gerry and John Copeland, Peter Radtke, Stephen McNamee, Beth Hogan, Frieda Evans, Ron Weepers, Mavis Lindon, Annette Milikins, and Christine Brownjohn.
This year has been another great year in Parap, and the residents association continues its good work. They have seen their lobbying for the Arafura Bowls site come to fruition. They were a catalyst in the creation of Friends of Vesteys, concerned with the preservation of the foreshore, and critical in the reestablishment of the Fannie Bay History and Heritage group. They have also contributed to the new Planning Scheme and acts, including input for the 50 km/h traffic zones and Gregory St traffic issues. Their next project is canvassing the community for input on the Telstra-owned OTC site. The Parap Residents Association are committed to a more balanced approach to planning in their suburb, while trying not to ignore the very important issues of building stronger, more vibrant communities. My congratulations to them.
The other association is the Stuart Park Residents Association. It is a group of very community-minded and active people. Under the chair of John Brears, together with Joan Brears as secretary, Christine Millowick as treasurer, Liz Nicholls the vice-chairman, Michael Kilgariff the public officer, and members John Leishman, Jill Rechner, Dianne Szarkowicz, Cyril Young, Deidre Allen, Helen Bateman, Chris Bond, my colleague Sue Carter, and Steven McCallum, it has been a productive and exciting year.
Some of the events for this year include active involvement in the review of the NT Planning Scheme and Planning Act with DIPE; active examination and study of the traffic problems in Stuart Park, including the junction of Duke St and Stuart Highway; Duke St and the new Francis Park development; and the clearway inbound on the Stuart Highway in morning rush hour.
The Stuart Park Residents Association is just about to launch an interactive web site dealing with issues in the neighbourhood. In addition, they are looking at the drainage problems at the junction of Nudl Street and Verberg Court, lack of maintenance to Darwin City Council parks, and the Buff Club parking area, just to name a few. In addition, the association successfully lobbied to resist some commercial developments that they believed were against the broad community feeling of Stuart Park. It has clearly been a most active year, and I commend everyone for their extensive involvement and their contributions.
Finally, on this last day of parliamentary sittings, I extend my thanks to everyone involved in the work of the parliament. After what, at times, seemed like a long 2004, now we are at the end of it, it seems to have gone very quickly. To the Speaker, the Deputy Clerk, the Clerk and all the staff of the Department of the Legislative Assembly, to those who do that very tough job of taking it all down - thank you Hansard, to the security people who keep us all safe, to the important people like Toots and the others in Speaker’s Corner for the food that keeps us all going, and to our drivers who get us here and back - and my personal thanks to Gary Wilkshire; to the IT staff, who keep the technology operating; and to the cleaners who keep us tidy and, particularly, keeping the vegetation in my office going - in particular one small plant for which I am very grateful - thank you to everyone.
Thank you also to all the staff who work in this building on the fifth floor and on the fourth floor; our colleagues on both sides of the House, and our two Independent members.
I would also like to thank our hardworking electorate staff. They provide an important contact for people in the electorate and, inevitably, put in very long hours. My particular thanks to Jessica Horn, Christine Gray, Chantel Vigona-Ross and Brian Martin - and thank you to all the staff who assist those who work in our electorates.
As well, I would like to thank the chief executives and their staff in my department. In the department of Chief Minister, including policy, Office Territory Development, Office of Indigenous Policy, Community Engagement through the Office of Youth Affairs, Women’s policy and Senior Territorians, Management Services, and, of course, the Cabinet Office, the Department of the Chief Minister operates across government and coordinates major projects. I certainly appreciate their commitment, the long hours they put in, and the superb product they produce.
My thanks to Arts and Museums, where I know the staff are always working to promote and support culture and the arts within our community. It has been a pretty big year in the arts area, and I know that that is really a tribute to the work that we see from the staff.
Last, but not at all least, the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. It is just about a year that I have been Tourism Minister, and it has been a much better year for all those involved in tourism. Our Tourist Commission does a great job in working with the industry, promoting the industry and, I believe, has the confidence of our industry.
I also thank my colleagues. It is sometimes tough but, with much pride, we do work well together. When you have worked together for about three-and-a-half years in government, you start to value what it is to have people who have differing talents and make differing contributions. That is probably one of the key strengths of our government and, particularly of our ministry: that we do respect the different talents of different people, and their contributions and hard work. To all my colleagues, many thanks. Sometimes, we put in some very long hours, and you have to learn a great deal of patience, I suspect.
I suppose tonight is also an opportunity for all of us to reflect on our good fortune at living here in the Territory, and our safe and peaceful lives in Australia. My thanks go to everyone who has worked so hard this year, and our families and friends who support and love us. All of us know that, sometimes, we really push our families hard and, at times, your worry about whether you get the balance even near right.
Particular thanks to my staff and the Office of Chief Minister, and to everyone who works behind the scenes to support us all. From me to everyone: have a safe and festive break over the Christmas/New Year period and may be all have a 2005 of peace and goodwill - that is ignoring all the long hours that we will put in.
A special thanks from me to my family: David, Jake and Chloe. When you do a Year 12 year, sometimes you feel as though running government is a lot easier than managing the first time that you do Year 12. I am looking forward to our results.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much, and I appreciate the great kindness that has just been extended to me by the member for Nelson, but I shall not be on my feet for long.
Without dwelling on all of the people in the House, I thank all staff of the Legislative Assembly, especially you up there, Hansard. I know you are listening. Wakey, wakey! To everybody in the parliament, I appreciate and thank you very much.
To my electoral officer, Kate Whitecross, I thank her very much as well for all of her efforts; and all of the other people who I will not bother to list, who have helped me over the last 12 months and over the last - gee whiz! – seven-and-a-half years. It goes quickly, I have to say.
The reason I speak tonight is that, at the CPA AGM meeting the other day, we discussed the use of the pool table. It was decided - and I was rash enough to suggest that I organise a pool comp over the next few days. That has now been completed. In the grand final, the member for Macdonnell and the member for Araluen played off against each other, and I am devastated to announce that it was actually the member for Araluen who won. I seek leave to table the draw and the results of the pool competition. I appreciate the members putting up with the annoying little green tags that I have stuck all over their computer screens, but it is very hard to work out a six-round pool competition amongst 25 people in three days. However, it has been done. Perhaps next year, we will have a few more people looking at the grand final if we are not doing it just before Christmas. I seek leave to table the results.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: Merry Christmas to your, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: And to you, sir.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I should I say the member for Macdonnell did me too. I thought you would have done better in the final.
Mr Elferink: Oh no, I got whooped, man.
Mr WOOD: I would like to cover just a few topics. The Howard Springs Landholders Association started off in 1980. Last week, it signed off on its last official meeting. The Howard Springs Landowners Association started before Litchfield Shire Council came into being. It has been an important local body of people who had great concerns about the future of the rural area. In their time of existence, they fought many battles with government and government departments over the ways in which the rural area would be developed. One of the most famous ones was the small blocks that were to be developed at Howard River Park. They certainly got under the skin of the then Chief Minister, Mr Paul Everingham, when they said that they did not want it. In the end, the government overrode them, but that left a long memory with many of those people about how government sometimes overrode the wishes of the people.
There have been many members of the Howard Springs Landowners Association over many years. They used to meet regularly at different people’s places through the rural area and enjoy a cup of tea and some home cooking. As I said, eventually they have decided, I suppose, that they have become redundant and to call it a day. They have kindly given over the last bit of money in their bank account, which was a little over $500, to the Howard Springs Volunteer Fire Brigade. All their records will handed over to the Litchfield Collection at Taminmin High School for keeping, as part of historical record there.
Another issue is the famous bridges that went missing. I thought that I would touch on those. We have not found them yet; they are certainly still missing. It is amazing how a small story like that can turn into something fairly large. Not only have I been interviewed by, I do not know how many papers and radio stations, I actually was asked to talk to Canadian Broadcasting Services about two weekends ago, to discuss where these missing bridges were. The bridges have gone far and wide. Well, I am not sure whether the actual bridges have gone far and wide, but the story has. We are still looking for the bridge. We have had a couple of tips, but we still have not found them.
I will mention, as I said, how things turn into yarns. I had the Fairfax journalist rang me up and ask me to take him down to where the bridge was. I went down there and said: ‘Obviously, these people knew what they were doing, because you can see the footprints from the industrial boots’. Anyway, the story ended up in the Melbourne Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the West Australian. It was actually reprinted last weekend in the Sunday Territorian in Bushranger that Gerry Wood had said that, obviously, these people were professionals because everybody in the rural areas wear thongs and these blokes were wearing boots. It is amazing how something moves from a little statement, with a little journalistic poetic licence added, and you end up with a great yarn.
Hopefully, we will get the bridges and the government will consider making the old railway corridor a heritage precinct. Hopefully, they will also turn it into a bicycle/adventure trail because that is one way to preserve it.
On another issue, yesterday, I asked a question of the minister about the billing methods Power and Water is using, which is causing quite a bit of confusion. I spoke to one of those people concerned this afternoon, and they are concerned that, legally, they have to pay the bills that have been sent to them. They are so concerned they are asking whether Power and Water would at least send them letter saying their power will not be cut off because they have not paid those bills. They need to be reassured that that will not happen, because some of those bills are very large. I am hoping Power and Water will - even though they have told them over the phone their power will not be cut off - give them reassurance in writing. That would be a help to those people.
Another issue that has also affected me since the last sittings is the boundary changes. The member for Fannie Bay mentioned she had an extra school in her electorate. Well, I have the member for Wanguri as my neighbour now. I have the poo pool – sorry, I mean the Leanyer Recreation pool and the …
Mr Henderson: Beautiful pool it is, as well.
Mr WOOD: It is, too. There are a lot of people down there. I believe they held the Northern Territory Skateboard Championships down there recently. See, I am up with these things now, member for Wanguri.
I also have the Buffalo Creek boat ramp, at which I found there was actually a caretaker. It should be just about open this week?
Mr Henderson: Yes.
Mr WOOD: I think he said two weeks. I am hoping to get an invitation there to see the official opening of the security yard and car park at Buffalo creek.
My boundary has certainly changed. I now have the Cypriot Community, the Filipino Community and all those communities …
Mr Henderson: You will enjoy them, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Oh, yes. I have my own secondary school. I have Marrara Christian School, which is a secondary – and, of course, now another primary school as well. I have the police barracks, the Army barracks, Knuckey Lagoon which is, I must admit, old country for me because, for 13 years I was the local ward councillor for that area. I am quite happy to meet my old friends and put the old table and chair up in the place where I used to do it before.
Yes, I have some changes: a couple of caravan parks as well, and a bit of the industrial area. I have the two Aboriginal communities, so the percentage of Aboriginal people in my community has certainly gone up. However, again, I am lucky enough to at least have contacts with those people. The 11 Mile community has a number of Daly River and Port Keats people in that area, and there are Wadjigan people at the 15 Mile community, plus Maningrida people, of course, and some Tiwis. I feel comfortable having those areas. I always find the easiest people to talk to many times are the Aboriginal people because they are so down to earth. They have their problems, of course. Those communities certainly do not always have it easy, so they have some problems. I hope I can work with Aboriginal Development Foundation, the Palmerston City Council which runs the 15 Mile. The 15 Mile now is actually called the Palmerston Indigenous Village. It has taken me a lot of effort to really accept that name; 15 Mile is what it has always been called. I will have to get used to the changes.
My boundaries have certainly changed. I should say that it is very sad that I have lost the area of Herbert; not that the name Herbert is really appreciated by many people who live there - most people cannot stand the name. However, I have lost that area of my electorate plus part of the western side of Humpty Doo. That is a great shame because I have many good friends there. I was hoping I could actually retain that area as well as have the expansion, but the Electoral Commission knew better and I have a different electorate. I am also very pleased to have the barracks. I have been there a number of times. I have felt very welcome there, and I intend to serve as well as I can the members of the Defence Forces who live there.
Another issue I would like to raise is that, at the last sittings, I attempted to pass a property law reform bill. Sadly, that was not taken up by the government. The government did say that it was intending to put out a discussion paper. I would just like to remind it that it did say that they would put out a discussion paper early next year. The longer these changes in the way land is sold in the Northern Territory, the more you leave it open to people being not as protected as they should be when purchasing a property or a house. I would hope the government would speed up their discussion paper in this area. It is a very important area that needs looking at, and I am hoping that they will bring that forward at the next sittings, if possible. I hope they get the discussion paper out quickly.
I just have another little comment to make. We were talking about place names today and there was some discussion about Aboriginal names. I am a great fan of Aboriginal names. In fact, for a long time I felt that I knew more Aboriginal names in Victoria where I came from, than I did in the Northern Territory. There is Koo Wee Rup, Nar Nar Goon, Dandenong and all those sorts of places. However, around even the Litchfield Shire you were pushing to find one Aboriginal name. The one name, of course, is Murrumujuck which is the proposed township at Shoal Bay.
It is important we use as many Aboriginal names as possible. Dundee was mentioned. As I said before, my wife is Aboriginal; that is her country and I am sure it is not called Dundee. In fact, I am not even sure it is called Namarada although it comes under the Namarada area plan, because most Wadjigan place names start with a ‘B’. I would be surprised if that area is called Namarada in the first place. It is not so long since Aboriginal people were there, and I sometimes think developers perhaps should be aware that there are Aboriginal names for those areas, and they should at least be looking to using those names where possible. I also take the point that the member for Drysdale made: when using Aboriginal names, they should be written in a language one can pronounce. I raised this in Alice Springs last year or the year before, that when the phonetic people or the linguists get hold of names and write them in phonetics, sometimes they are impossible to say. Arrernte does not sound like the spelling you see today. If we are going to use Aboriginal names, they should be Anglicised in such a way so people understand how to pronounce them.
Finally, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker - I know it is late and this is last speech of the night, although the member for Wanguri may have something to say - I would just also like to thank my fellow politicians throughout parliament for all the work they do. Regardless of all the banter, I believe that good debate is what we need to have good legislation. On this side of parliament, although I do not regard myself as opposition, I suppose I am called the cross-bench. I am not cross, but I am on the bench which is not opposition nor government. However, we have a role to play in keeping the government honest, and I will try to continue to do that. I would like to wish all my fellow politicians a happy Christmas.
To all the staff of the Legislative Assembly, thank you very much for all the work you do, for the advice you give, for the odd tip at the races - thank you very much for those as well; to all the people who help out on the committees. They do a terrific amount of work and, without those people, I could not serve on committees because they do a lot of the background work, investigation and they help a lot. To the Hansard people, hopefully, they can understand a few speeches of mine. At times, I head off in different directions and they do have trouble understanding what I say. Thank you for being able to translate that and put it down on paper so that even I can understand it when I read it.
I have some wonderful people in my electorate and I enjoy their company and, hopefully, I can make a change for their lives to be a little better. They are a great lot of people. I enjoy meeting all the kids through sport throughout the year. I am blessed with a great lot of people – people who do not always agree with me, who never even voted for me. However, I still think that I am lucky to meet all those people; they certainly enrich one’s life.
To my great staff: Jenny, who was here today for the electorate officers’ get together, has a smile that starts off your Monday immediately. It might have been a busy weekend, there might be some issues that are really getting you down, but Jenny can cheer you up immediately. She is a great lady. She is certainly a wonderful person to have in the office, and is always very helpful to people with problems. She gets them a cup of tea, helps them with photocopying – whatever – she is just a wonderful lady. She is helped by Linda, who fills in when Jenny is out picking mangos. Linda volunteers to give a hand whenever, and she has been very helpful. At the moment, I think she is rolling up newsletters for distribution before Christmas. Liz works on Fridays. She is my Woman Friday. She also does a great job. She is studying at university, trying to raise three growing young people and working on Friday for us. She is a great help as well.
To Jo Van Os who does my cartoons, thank you. Jo used to be my electorate officer. She now lives in town, but she is always quite happy to do some drawings when I need them. Thanks, Jo, for all your help.
Of course, my family; I tell people I am a single married man these days because I am rarely home, but I do know I have support from my family. I have four little grandchildren these days and two of my daughters still live in the Darwin area. My eldest daughter has moved to Perth to work with the Department of Employment and Training there in Aboriginal areas and, as much as it is a long way from home, I know she is very happy there, so I am very pleased for her as well.
To all my supporters in the FOG group as they are called - the Friends of Gerry - thank you for your help during the year. It has been much appreciated.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish everyone a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude my Christmas greetings to a number of people this evening.
I send a big thank you to all members of Neighbourhood Watch in Wanguri and Leanyer, as they have contributed greatly to the Wanguri electorate in the last 12 months. The property crime rates in Wanguri are the lowest they have been for about 20 years, and a large part of that can be attributed to the activity of Neighbourhood Watch in the electorate, the increased police resourcing and the great policing that is happening now from Casuarina police station.
Thank you to the Neighbourhood Watch committee: Brian Kennedy, Jessica Horn, Jarna Neve, Robyn Harrison, Geoff Pickering and the local Casuarina police station for all of your work this year, particularly, for putting on the free Family Fun Day at Leanyer Primary School this year, which was a great day and allowed the community to come together. Neighbourhood Watch, you are doing a great job in the electorate, and I look forward to working with you again next year.
I would also like to thank my branch of the Labor Party, the Casuarina Branch, a fantastic branch that works very hard for all of the members of the Casuarina branch – me and the members for Casuarina and Johnston. I would particularly like to thank Russell Wilson, Andrew Fyles, Ron Greaves, George Mou, Costa Kariolias, Kent Rowe, John Rawnsley, Eunice De Ramos, Brian Kennedy and Judy Herring for huge support to all of the members in the branch, and members of parliament. Also to Frank Moukaddem, who is always there to help whenever he is needed. He does a lot of the unsung work around the branch. Frank, you are a true champion and it is absolutely wonderful working with you.
I would also like to thank my departments. There are the CEOs of my departments who work so hard. In DBIRD, I would like to again thank Peter Blake, who retired earlier this year, and welcome Mike Burgess, who has been in that role for some six months now and doing a great job. DBIRD is really hitting their straps, particularly the areas that I am responsible for, Asian Relations and Trade, the general business areas and policy areas of the department. I am getting great feedback from the business community for the work that you are all doing.
Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Commissioner Paul White, and everybody in the Northern Territory Police Force – it has been an absolutely magnificent year. The Territory is a much better place as a result of the work that the commissioner and all his team have been doing. I would like to thank everybody in the police for a great 12 months’ worth of work. Bruce Mouatt, the Acting Chief Fire Officer came in at a very difficult time this year, post the Metis review, and had the responsibility of bedding that down. The fire service is certainly a totally different place to what it was 12 months ago. Bruce, you are to take a large part in the credit of turning things around. To all the firies, I certainly appreciate that most people have let bygones be bygones, and put things behind them, and are working together and moving forward.
DCIS, is the unsung hero amongst all of the government agencies, a service delivery agency to other government agencies, as well as having the responsibility for IT policy and contract management for our outsourced IT service providers. CEO, Sarah Butterworth moved on to DIPE this year. Thank you, Sarah, for the great shape that you left the department in. Richard Galton, the incoming CEO, you are doing a great job. Welcome to the team, and I look forward to working with you next year.
Paul Tyrrell, the CEO of the Chief Minister’s and the Cabinet Office, it is a pleasure working with you. I appreciate your advice and guidance, Paul, and thank you for your contribution to the Territory. Shaun O’Sullivan and the Protocol team are doing a magnificent job, putting on all of the functions that we attend throughout the year. Parliamentary Counsel, Gale Jamieson and all the team work so hard putting government legislation together. There have been a few contentious things said this year but, quite genuinely, Gale and the team, all of us here in this House respect and appreciate the work that you do.
All the staff of the Legislative Assembly, the Clerk Ian McNeill, all of the team in Building Management, and Hansard, you do a fantastic job keeping the parliament going, and are well respected by everybody who works here.
Our ministerial drivers, Gary, George, Wayne, Yani, Thor and Hardy, do a fabulous job ferrying us all around. I certainly enjoy your company and your camaraderie. Thanks for the service.
Mr Deputy Speaker, other MLAs, I wish everybody here in the House a very happy and safe Christmas. To our caucus, a fantastic bunch of people to work with. It is a real pride and privilege to work with so many passionately committed people to leaving the Territory a better place than we found it when we all came to office. I enjoy everybody’s company. We have great friendships, we are a great team, and we look forward to working together even harder next year.
I would like to thank my electorate office staff, Jarna Neve. Jarna, you have done a fabulous job this year coming in after Ryan took off to Europe for 12 months. Thank you for all your hard work and innovation. Alanna Dinning and Marie McLean who step in for time to time – thank you for your support. Erin Grace and Christine Gray, who also help me out at the electorate office and also my ministerial office: it is great to have you on the team and you make a great contribution to the team.
Ministerial staff on the fifth floor work really hard trying to keep the wheels of government turning and implementing our election commitments and government policy. I know you all work really hard and all of Cabinet appreciate the work that you do. Also, not forgetting Andrea Martin and her team in the Office of Central Australia. Merry Christmas to you all, and I certainly look forward to working with you again in the new year. You do a fabulous job.
In my ministerial office is my Chief of Staff, Mark Nelson, Kieran Phillips, Rebecca Cass, Carole Frost, Sandy Sinclair, Jenny Tiernan. Thank you for the enormous work that you put in supporting me and the work that I do. I do not say thank you often enough; I know that. However, you know that I really appreciate all of the hours that you put in. It is a wonderful team in my office. Everybody pulls together really well and we are making a difference out there to everybody. That is why we came and put our hands up to become members of parliament and, ultimately, to be in government to leave the Territory a better place than we found it. You are all playing your parts.
Not forgetting Gabrielle Mullen and Jim Davidson, our candidate for Solomon and business advisor to me. Jim, bad luck this year. You certainly put in a great effort and worked as hard as you could, but the times were not yours, Jim. I know that you will go on to great things, and I look forward to catching up with you in the new year. Chantelle Barker, who left earlier this year for Alice Springs, is making a new life for herself in Alice, and I will catch up with you when I am next down there.
Last but not least, my family: my wife Stacey, boys, Alasdair and Liam, and my little princess, Isabel. I could not do this without your support. As all members here with family have said, this is a really hard job on our families. I certainly love you all and look forward to spending some great time over Christmas and into the surf in Newcastle in the new year.
To everybody: Merry Christmas and I look forward to seeing everybody back here in February next year.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from the Administrator Message No 27 notifying assent to bills passed in the October 2004 sittings.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Northern Territory’s Relationship with BIMP-EAGA
Northern Territory’s Relationship with BIMP-EAGA
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to report to the House on a most significant development in the Northern Territory’s relationship with the Brunei, Indonesian, Malaysia, Philippines, East-ASEAN Growth Area, BIMP-EAGA.
As honourable members know, BIMP-EAGA is an ASEAN sub-regional economic group designed to develop and support the growth of trade, and promote stronger transport, business investment and other links between the regions of the member countries. The Northern Territory has long had a relationship with BIMP-EAGA, including participating in a number of senior official’s meetings and ministerial meetings, including the meetings held in Mindanao, the Philippines, in 2003. However, in recent months this relationship has been cemented as never before.
In October this year, Darwin hosted the first ever BIMP-EAGA senior official’s meeting to be held in Australia. The meeting was dedicated to exploring the trade, investment and relationship opportunities between the Territory and the sub-regional economic development grouping. I was pleased to welcome and meet with delegations from the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Indonesia. Other delegates who participated in the meeting included officials from the Territory governments, Territory business organisations, the International Business Council, AusAID, Austrade, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Philippine-Australia Business Council. This meeting focussed on the nature and status of the Northern Territory’s participation in BIMP-EAGA; on opportunities to jointly develop mutually beneficial projects; my proposal for a one-stop shop for pre-qualified overseas businesses wishing to invest and trade in Australia; and to link business investment and trade between the BIMP-EAGA region and the Northern Territory.
This business matching register is all about looking to the future and how we can maximise growth and opportunities for our business communities, and has a strong emphasis on linking the rest of Australia through the AustralAsia Trade Route. The one-stop shop will be developed in association with the Chamber’s International Business Council, which will be able to assist by brokering business matching on bringing our resources together to capitalise on business and trade opportunities in the Territory and Australia.
After the meeting, the senior officials toured the port and rail facilities in Darwin, and joined us as VIP guests at the 2004 Northern Territory Export Awards on Saturday, 23 October. The Darwin dialogue was a unique opportunity for engagement with the BIMP-EAGA senior officials, and it signalled an important step forward in the Territory’s role and links with the BIMP-EAGA grouping and its strengthening relationship between the Northern Territory and the region.
Last week, this relationship was further strengthened when I was pleased to accept an invitation from BIMP-EAGA to participate in the 9th Ministerial Meeting and the 12th Senior Officials Meeting in Balikpapan, Indonesia. I am pleased to report to the House that senior officials have decided that the trading bloc should be known as ‘BIMP-EAGA Plus One’, significantly upgrading our status, declaring the Northern Territory as the first development partner of BIMP-EAGA. This new title recognises the Territory’s increased efforts and partnerships in the region, confirms for the first time access to the Northern Territory to allow us to participate freely in all BIMP-EAGA senior officials and ministerial meetings, as well as working groups and informal senior officials meetings. It underscores this government’s determination to build, extend and strengthen our position and linkages in our international region.
The proposal for a one-stop shop business register was also fully endorsed at Balikpapan, and a working group will now be established with the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory as the coordinating body.
These are truly historic landmark developments in the Northern Territory’s relationship with the region which will open doors into the region as never before, with stronger trading and business opportunities for the Northern Territory.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I applaud the efforts of the minister in regards to his efforts with BIMP-EAGA. Not before time, I say. I am not interested in criticising this government. Equally, I hope that they would applaud the long-standing efforts of the CLP governments in achieving observer status with BIMP-EAGA meetings over some time. That status had dropped over the last couple of years, and it is good to see that the minister has recognised the importance of those meetings and has achieved, for himself and the government of the Northern Territory, formal recognition to maintain that situation.
BIMP-EAGA is a sorry story, frankly, in that gone are the heady days when BIMP-EAGA was driven by a strong leader. When one thinks back to the days of President Ramos and the efforts of previous Chief Minister, Shane Stone, BIMP-EAGA was very much on the map in how growth was going to be achieved in those regions. The Northern Territory was well and truly placed because of its relationships as part of that BIMP-EAGA process. Hence, a visit was made by President Ramos to the Northern Territory in recognition of our efforts. Sadly, since President Ramos’ departure there has not really been a leader - and I include here our Prime Minister, who has seen the importance of ensuring BIMP-EAGA gets the drive that it needs from a regional national leader. One can only hope that, with some of the emerging leaders, such as the new Prime Minister of Malaysia, that drive is regenerated.
I applaud the efforts of the minister in his concept of a one-stop shop. I support him entirely in his efforts to strengthen and maintain our relations within BIMP-EAGA. I offer to provide him whatever support - I would hope that he would give me whatever information that he has with regards to how we can all work together in this relationship.
Mr HENDERSON (Asian Relations and Trade): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Brennan for his support. Certainly, I will arrange a briefing for the member for Brennan as we move forward.
I accept his comments; BIMP-EAGA did lose its way, particularly post the 1997 Asian financial crisis. However, this was the 10th anniversary of the formation of BIMP-EAGA this year and I can say, from attending the ministerial meeting in Balikpapan, that there is a new drive and energy as BIMP-EAGA moves in to its second decade. The key concept that I promoted to ministers was, in the trade and investment ambitions for BIMP-EAGA, to look at Darwin as BIMP-EAGA’s gateway into the Australian market, and to partner with Northern Territory businesses in accessing that market of 20 million people via the AustralAsia Trade Route - a concept that was embraced by ministers of the region.
We move to the second decade for BIMP-EAGA and I am pleased to see that there is bipartisan support in the House for continuing to support that relationship.
Aboriginal Interpreter Service
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, in the four short years since the Aboriginal Interpreter Service was established through matching federal funds, the service has succeeded in recruiting around 250 interpreters in over 100 languages and dialects. It is a service which has, I hope, fully bipartisan support in this parliament.
For the first time in Territory history, despite legal commentary going back 70 years to the Dhakiyarr trial in the 1930s criticising a lack of interpreters for Aboriginal people in the courts, we now how such as service. Furthermore, it is a service that is proving increasingly valuable in the health sector, and one that is also extending into other areas of government and private sector activity. For example, my department is soon to employ interpreters as a part of the process of reducing antisocial behaviour problems in and around public housing in Alice Springs. This follows action-based research by the Yalu Women’s Project based at Galiwinku, designed to assist people to return to country.
There are problems we acknowledge, particularly within the legal system. It is common that interpreters have gender or kinship prohibitions in particular cases. Many of our interpreters are women and are reluctant to do court work generally, or are averse to doing trials involving rape, violence and murder. This is, obviously, not good for the plaintiffs, the accused or the cause of justice generally. Many interpreters also feel in an uncomfortable situation - the meat in the sandwich, if you like - in an adversarial legal system. We are actively working with communities to enhance interpreters’ reputations and roles as neutral reporters within the court system, rather than as partisan players.
Two trials have recently been adjourned for the lack of a suitable Pitjantjatjara interpreter. This is, obviously, of great concern. We now have an interpreter for these two trials, and another Pitjantjatjara interpreter is in the process of being fully trained in court work.
As minister responsible for the interpreter service, I am pleased to inform this House that the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory, Brian Martin, has agreed to be fully briefed on the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. I am grateful for his interest in the matter and his willingness to seek solutions to the problems the judicial system faces.
At this briefing, strategies will be discussed that will assist the smooth running of the court system in the future. This will also involve working with the DPP and legal services to ensure interpreters are efficiently scheduled on time and as needed. This will be designed to save on delays within the judicial system and, thus, lessen adverse impacts on those who might be called upon to give evidence in what are often inherently difficult proceedings.
I have noted comments from the member for Araluen over the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. I welcome the fact that she shares my concerns and commitment to improving the situation. As I have indicated, we are actively working with the judiciary and other stakeholders to improve service delivery. I trust that support for the work of the interpreter service is bipartisan. I am concerned that the federal government is currently indicating at officer level that they may withdraw funding support for the service. I urge my counterparts in opposition to lobby their colleagues in Canberra to continue funding a service that commenced with federal support under the previous government.
Our service is the best of its kind in the country. No other state or territory can match it, and we need to continue to improve it and maintain the service at the highest levels.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I am going to start by saying: ‘I told you so’. I told you so during the budget process; that your cuts to the interpreter service - your cuts, listed in the last Budget Paper No 3 - are the reason this interpreter service is now struggling. Do not come in here and start whinging about the fact that the federal government is making the cuts.
The other thing is that money was always tied to mandatory sentencing, if memory serves me correctly. You should have been aware that, by withdrawing your support for that regime, that money may well have dried up as well. Be aware that, back in the estimates process and when this budget was introduced, this government cut the funding - long before the federal government ever signalled that they were going to cut funding.
What is the result? We have two trials that were adjourned in Alice Springs last week for want of Aboriginal interpreters. Did I not signal this back during the budget debates? Yes, I did. Did I say that there was a major problem?
Ms Lawrie: Did the CLP not provide an interpreter service?
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection from the Whip. Yes, we funded it. Yes, the CLP created the Aboriginal Interpreter Service and funded it to an amount greater than is currently being funded now. So, these words should be choking the minister when he stands up here and speaks, because what he is trying to do - the fraud that he is trying to perpetrate - is an outrage.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is outrageous.
Mr ELFERINK: The Aboriginal Interpreter Service …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, I have to ask you to withdraw that allegation.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.
The deception that the minister is engaged in - the hypocrisy of this minister - is just amazing. Frankly, I have a strategy that might work for the minister: fund it properly - the same strategy that I gave to you months ago when I said that this was going to become a problem for you.
It is fascinating that this minister comes in here and tries to lay the blame elsewhere. The fact is that his budget, by the Treasurer, was cut across the board through his department, with very few exceptions. Now he is trying to come in here and lay the blame elsewhere. I will tell you where to lay the blame, minister. The blame is sitting right in front of you there to your left, and his name is the Treasurer. If you want to go and have a bleat about money, go and bleat to him and provide a proper service to the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr AH KIT (Community Development): Madam Speaker, what a woeful response from the shadow opposition. This is the person who stood up here and said to my colleague, the minister for DIPE: ‘Well, I will go off to Canberra with you; I will hold your hand and help lobby for roads money’. However, in this particular situation, we have the Aboriginal Interpreter Service and, as far as the CLP is concerned, it is not on their radar - it is not something they support in policy. They used to support it when mandatory sentencing was around but, because mandatory sentencing is no longer here: ‘We do not support the service’.
Mr Elferink: We are all living happily ever after! Things are so good out there - 14-year-old girls are being raped – in the street in daylight!
Mr AH KIT: How ridiculous! Well, have you gone out and told your Aboriginal constituents in your electorate?
Mr Elferink: You are going to destroy this, Jack! Your ineptitude is going to destroy this! Wake up during budget Cabinet and fight …
Mr AH KIT: Have you gone out and told them that you are lobbying against the Aboriginal Interpreter Service and that you do not see a need for it? Well, you are pathetic! I look forward to giving you a dressing down on the MPI later on this afternoon!
Bushfire Management
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I report to the Assembly on bushfire management efforts across the various bushfire regions of the Territory.
Members will recall the devastating fires experienced across the Northern Territory during 2002-03, and the tremendous efforts of land-holders, volunteer bushfire brigade members and Bushfire Council control officer in combating these fires. Following these fires, the Bushfire Council of the Northern Territory decided to prepare a report to me detailing the fire management efforts undertaken in each of the bushfire regions across the Territory. I would like to present this report to the Territory for the first time today.
As members would be aware, the Northern Territory is divided into nine fire control regions, with each area reflecting the varying land uses, population density, climate, soil and vegetation diversity found across the Territory. The reports being presented today were compiled by the chairs for each of the nine fire control regions in the Territory in the reporting period. The new Arnhem region, which was established in 2004, will be represented in later reports. Members will note that the report has been split into two parts, one for the northern tropical and the other for the southern arid portions of the Territory. These documents report on different parts of the year. This has been done to best report on the active fire seasons which are distinctly different in the north and south of the Northern Territory.
The report showed that, during the 2003 calendar year, volunteer bushfire crews in the southern reason encompassing Alice Springs, Elliott and Barkly, attended over 120 wild fires. During the same period, crews in the northern region, covering the Top End, VRD and gulf areas, attended to some 230 wildfires. Crews in both regions also undertook many hours of controlled burning, as well as providing important community support through attendance at local functions and events.
Local bushfire administration consists of a Regional Bushfires Committee, comprised of community members with a commitment to developing better fire control management processes and plans at a local level. Consequently, the reports, as well as detailing the events and statistics of the fire season, provide an important insight into the community and land-holder perspective of fires and their impacts. As such, the reports will be distributed throughout the Territory and will be available from the department web site. I will be interested in obtaining a view from interested parties on the usefulness of this reporting process.
As members may be aware, each of the 21 volunteer brigades in the Territory receives an annual funding grant from the Northern Territory government. On top of the $636 000 which was distributed to volunteer brigades in the budget earlier this financial year, the Northern Territory government provides an additional $150 000 grant for the purchase of personal protective clothing for approximately 300 volunteer firefighters. I can attest that that was very welcome. An additional $560 000 was allocated to the program in August this year, which helped buy three new grassfire units allocated to the Beatrice Hill, Douglas Daly and Milne Volunteer Bushfire Brigades. The government also announced, at that time, that an extra $200 000 would be provided each year on an ongoing basis for brigade operational grants, with a further $60 000 to be provided each year for an expanded vehicle replacement program. This was a welcome boost for brigade members.
The Northern Territory government recognises the crucial role played by the many dedicated volunteer firefighters who contribute over 10 000 hours of active duty each year to wildfire prevention in their communities. These volunteers help protect important rural communities, and are part of the vital infrastructure that supports the homes and businesses of Territorians living outside of urban areas. In the coming year, our bushfire brigades will, no doubt, perform their duties with the same professionalism and energy they have shown in previous years. I am sure that all members will join me in thanking the people involved in the brigades for their tireless efforts and, especially, wishing them a happy and fire-free festive season.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, this used to be called a tabling statement, and now we have a mini-statement. There are members of this parliament who understand bushfires; there are several of us here who have actually fought bushfires. My colleague from Macdonnell is still a volunteer bushfire fighter; my son, indeed, last month, was out fighting fires on a pastoral property. For us to have two minutes to say: ‘Gee, we think you have done a good job. Here you are; I have tabled it, and I hope you have a happy Christmas’, is really an offence to this parliament. This matter should be discussed.
We saw parliament pulled up in Alice Springs - fairly unprecedented – so that we could pay a proper tribute and acknowledgement to the bushfire fighters in Alice Springs. We realised that it was a stunt when we were there quietly having an ale with the bushfire fighters, and we looked into the one-way glass at the restaurant and there was the Chief Minister, who wanted to properly acknowledge the Bushfire Council, sitting there drinking with a couple of public servants – did not even come out and join them! It was so important that we had to pull up the business of this parliament to go and acknowledge these people - and I agree that they deserve an appropriate acknowledgement - and we saw the absolute hypocrisy – hypocrisy! - of the Chief Minister sitting there and drinking with public servants instead of, at least, joining these people. So, do not come in here and say: ‘We have a good report, we know what is going on; but you will not have the opportunity to discuss the matter’, because we can see you for what you are. What you are trying to do is hide behind glossy reports of this type to feign concern.
We saw when we introduced the private member’s bill and told you that there was a bushfire season coming up, that some statutory tools might help in reducing fire hazard. We saw the then minister, who is the member for Casuarina, actually renege on that bill - squash the bill - and come back with an exact replica with one or two minor differences. So, do not give us this ‘It is urgent, here it is, we love bushfires, I handed over the equipment, they really love me’, because what we would like to do is use the business of this parliament to look at matters relating to this in a thoughtful and considered way, rather than a two minute rejoinder.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, it was a remarkable outburst by the member for Drysdale. Since I have become minister, I have given more than adequate recognition to the firefighters. I recognise that, over many years, they have probably been short-funded, and I gave them an undertaking that I would try and reverse that situation, and the firefighters appreciate that. I am just amazed that the member for Drysdale would not join, in a bipartisan way, and thank the firefighters for their efforts and recognise that the resources that they have been given are important and well-needed and well-placed.
Review of Community Welfare Act
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, tackling child abuse and neglect is an absolute priority for the Martin government. I delivered a ministerial statement in August outlining the position of this government on the care and protection of our children and young people. We have tripled the budget and put on 32 new staff this year. We have instituted the Family and Children Services Advisory Council so that we get advice from people from across the Territory. We understand that these things alone will not stop all child abuse.
A key component to reform of the child protection system is legislation that provides the best framework possible for the protection of our children and young people now and into the future. The Community Welfare Act 1993 has been recognised as being outdated. It has not been properly reviewed or updated for 20 years. It has not kept pace with the contemporary issues impacting upon the care and protection of children and young people. We have listened to the community and we are acting. Today, I would like to table a discussion bill for a proposed act, the Care and Protection of Children and Young People Act 2005.
This bill is a complete overhaul of the existing Community Welfare Act. This legislation will go beyond the scope of the previous legislation. It more comprehensively addresses the safety, care and development of all children and young people in our community, and not just those who are being harmed. It provides opportunity for early intervention by the community and it encourages the community to play a role in creating an environment that optimises the care and development of our children. Importantly, it provides a comprehensive framework for responding to reports of child abuse and neglect. It recognises that one response does not fit every situation. This legislation provides for greater cooperation between government and non-government agencies in responding to allegations of child abuse. The legislation ensures that relevant agencies are able to share information to facilitate inquiries in investigations. This act proposes mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing the services provided to families and children. This will result in a more effective collaboration between government and non-government organisations in planning for the best possible mix of services and to ensure the delivery of quality services to meet the needs of children, young people and their families.
New to the legislation is the proposal to establish a children’s commissioner and a child death review committee. This legislation also brings into line the safety and protection of children who are cared for in some form of children’s services. It recognises the expectation of the community that the time children spent away from families be as safe as possible. The legislation proposes for the screening of any person caring for a child or working with children. This employment screening will go some way to ensure that those working with children have undergone appropriate screening including a criminal history check. I am confident that the proposed legislation will allow for a greatly improved response to specific child abuse allegations by FACS and the police. It will ensure that a system is better able to provide a differentiated response to families in crisis where the safety of children is compromised.
I commend the efforts of departmental staff in the development of the proposed act and for their efforts in ensuring ongoing consultation in relation to the proposed legislation. I specifically would like to thank Anthony Burton, Barbara Kelly, Lee Anne Jarrett Sims and Agnes McGrath.
Individuals, organisations and communities across the Northern Territory will have access to this discussion paper and accompanying consultation paper and explanatory notes paper. They will be able to express their views at public meetings, specific interest group forums, or through written and verbal submissions. At the conclusion of the community consultation, any necessary amendments to the discussion draft will be made and it will be tabled as a bill in the Legislative Assembly next year.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report this morning. The review of the Community Welfare Act has certainly been some time coming. It has been ongoing now for many months, and it is great to see it getting to this point. I will certainly look forward to having a look at the draft and consultation paper. I know the member for Araluen will be particularly interested in this matter.
The minister talks frequently about her government’s concern with regards to child abuse. We have seen in the budget papers additional funding going into that area. Of particular concern over the last 12 months, however, has been the ongoing industrial unrest within the Child Protection Agency. It will be interesting to hear from the minister in her response how that is progressing in respect of the provision of staffing, the workloads that they are facing, and the challenges that they face.
It is all very well to change legislation, but you need the hands on the ground working in the community in this difficult area. The front page of today’s paper says it all. We have: ‘Girl, aged 11, held in mental ward …’. It is a demonstration of the problems that we face with provision of good care to children in great need. The fact that this young girl has spent two months - I suspect in Cowdy Ward - is an indication of the problems that we face.
I wish the minister all the best with the review of the act. I look forward to hearing the information and being involved in the discussions about this act. Today’s paper, however, is a continuing indication of the problems that we face.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, quickly addressing that issue, I agree with the member for Port Darwin that is a very sad and unfortunate case. I was left, as minister, with no alternative but to detain this child in her best interests.
Regarding staff and the industrial relations dispute, things are proceeding quite well. The accommodation issue has progressed a good way down the track. There are still aspects that we need to work on in staffing in some of the regional areas, but they are things that are coming along.
Back to the legislation and the draft discussion bill, this has been warmly welcomed by all of the sector and the wider community. The fact that it is not just being introduced gives the community an opportunity to finetune what is probably going to be one of the most important items of legislation that can come into this parliament, and ensures that we do have the legislative framework for the future.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion of Censure
Move Motion of Censure
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this Assembly from censuring the Chief Minister and the Martin Labor government for being secretive, dishonest, misleading and duplicitous over its plans for the $1bn Darwin City Waterfront development, and calls on the government to be honest and transparent by explaining to Territorians, who have a right to know, the following prior to financial close:
- (a) the full extent of taxpayers’ financial commitment to this project;
providing to the developers;
blocks to exceed the level of the escarpment;
cannot be appealed;
to submit development applications on the waterfront land, which is still owned by the Territory
taxpayer and financial close has not been reached; and
- And, further, in the public interest, calls on the Martin government to publicly release documentation and models
of the waterfront development’s second and third ranked consortia.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister and Government
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister and Government
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly censure the Chief Minister and the Martin Labor government for being secretive, dishonest, misleading and duplicitous over its plans for the $1bn Darwin City Waterfront development, and calls on the government to be honest and transparent by explaining to Territorians, who have a right to know, the following prior to financial close:
- (a) the full extent of taxpayers’ financial commitment to this project;
to the developers;
to exceed the level of the escarpment;
cannot be appealed;
to submit development applications on the waterfront land, which is still owned by the Territory
taxpayer and financial close has not been reached; and
- And, further, in the public interest, calls on the Martin government to publicly release documentation and models
of the waterfront development’s second and third ranked consortia.
This matter, rising before the minds of Territorians, and particularly those who live in this capital city, is one that has the greatest significance. It is beginning to gain a concerted interest from the wider community. Just as a fish left in a bag begins to rot and smell, this whole project is starting to smell, and Territorians are beginning to inquire. It is not as a result of information that they have received that they are beginning to grow concerned; it is because of the nature of the government’s approach to this, which has been wholly secretive, dishonest, deliberately misleading, and duplicitous.
There is no greater decision that faces a government than to lead honestly, particularly when it comes to issues relating to the planning of a capital city. The children who are currently being born, and their children, will inherit that decision which has been put before the people by this government regarding the future of this city. The government has a short time on the stage and, during that time, they are to discharge an immense responsibility. They have a requirement to get it right. They have a contract with the people of the Northern Territory, who are watching.
However, I know that I am not standing alone in my concerns of actions of this government in leading up to this grand decision,. I know that I am driven by a rising concern within the community and that I am not alone in these concerns. I know that this is the beginning of a change. This is a watershed issue, and the Northern Territory community - mark my words - will rally to this issue, attracted to it by the actions of this government leading up to the discharge of their duty and responsibility in decision-making, of such a magnitude that I fear they have lost their own confidence and integrity. They undermine their own integrity by their actions.
There is a sea change occurring and - mark my words - this is the beginning of it. The community is beginning to stand, and they will rally to this cause. There has been secretiveness. It was the little things to start with - the small things such as the excessive enthusiasm of a Chief Minister in describing the path which we will go down. The little lies such as: ‘I will release all information for everyone to assess and to weigh’. We have had those comments made all the way along the line and the actions do not match the rhetoric. It is the little things that irk, such as the release of a travel itinerary; breathless assertions that are made to the Northern Territory community; honest assertions which we believe straight up. However, we are let down again and again. It is those little things that undermine and niggle. Territorians are starting to register that there is a secretiveness, a capacity for dishonesty in small things which undermine their confidence – their fundamental confidence in the capacity of this government to actually deliver on the most significant of issues.
There is a deliberate misleading on issues of height, with one message given out, just hoping that people will be able to accept the naive and breathy assertions of the Chief Minister, and they will swallow it and take it away. However, I give great credit and, I believe in time to come people will come to recognise the work of the member for Drysdale, who took the time to read a document very closely and identify the issues of primary concern that an honest and open government would address which were hidden, obscured, and presented in a misleading manner. It was a deliberate intent to obscure, to hide, to fudge, so that the grand plan can be delivered. I pay credit to the member for Drysdale who will, I am sure, in his contribution, add more to that trail, which adds substance and weight to that niggling feeling that is arising in many Territorians’ minds with regards to the actions and the capacity of this government. They want to know. This is a decision that they want to have some confidence about, and the actions to this point have eroded and undermined any capacity for that confidence.
The confidence issue is an important one to draw upon. When we recognise that, for the time of this government’s opportunity to discharge their responsibility of huge significance, the business community has, from reporting point to reporting point, expressed very plainly their lack of confidence in this government’s ability. Maybe they were trying to find their feet and get used to their style. However, there is something more to it. Okay, economic fortunes change and that confidence level may move up or down, but there is something more to it; there is still that niggling feeling.
When called to account on detail over this project, there was an obvious absence of confidence where not one minister can stand to defend or go out in the public arena and explain to Territorians plainly what this issue is about - aspects of the height process. Not turning up to radio interviews or television opportunities indicates very clearly the departure of confidence. There are many questions relating to the balsa wood model, for example.
This government has clearly manifested a lack of confidence in their own ability to prosecute this. I want to go back further. Why would a government lose confidence and resort to secretiveness, dishonesty, misleading information, and duplicity? I believe it is a matter of conscious. When we are talking about creating something of such historic significance - a permanent legacy and reminder of the discharge of a responsibility at a particular point in time – and there is nothing more significant in the physical form of a capital city and waterfront, you would have to work out what is actually driving this; what is the intent.
The community has lost their confidence, the courage of this government has departed and the tide is turning and the community can smell that this is to serve a short-term political agenda. This is to create the impression that this government can do something. That is what is driving this more than anything. That is why there is such a contracted period of public consultation, and misleading information. There is an air of desperation about this, and the people of the Territory - and the people in the Top End particularly - are growing increasingly nervous.
Why can you not assure Territorians of the financial aspects of this deal when you said that that is the primary basis of your decision? It is not an issue of design, but many Territorians want to know what their waterfront will look like. You are able to produce a glossy picture, but you say that it is based on a commercial premise, your justification for choosing this consortium. Territorians need to know the framework by which this is constructed. You are discharging you responsibility on their behalf. Divulge that, clarify that, so that there is confidence in the Northern Territory community. Make it plain. There are many developers in our community who know the value of land. They know the potential here. They know that 28 ha of prime capital waterfront land …
Ms Martin: Twenty five hectares, Terry, let us get it right.
Mr MILLS: I just said 25 hectares.
Ms Martin: You said 28!
Mr MILLS: Twenty-five hectares. Well, how many buildings are there? What are you doing with it? What is the commercial value? Chief Minister, it is a small and focussed and interested community relative to Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, and Brisbane. This is a different community. They are watching this and for the reasons I have mentioned before - little reasons that have grown into a significant turn of support away from this government. They want to know what the commercial value of their own waterfront is. What value have you placed on it? You have not been able to divulge that. That will turn against you. That same community which is watching this wants to know why you are pushing the planning scheme amendments through. Yes, you can explain it, but there is more behind it. It is this air of desperation, this desire to achieve something in the short term.
There is more about the Chief Minister in this than there is about the future of the Northern Territory. There is more about the future of this government tied up in this project. With that energy behind this project, it is doomed to failure, because the people will decide on this. The people will decide on it and, before you throw a few words across the Chamber to endeavour to strengthen your own position, you will be weakened in this respect. You will say: ‘Ah, the CLP is now anti-development’. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are supporters of appropriate, responsible development.
The people of the Northern Territory need to know quite clearly, with confidence, that the duties that you are discharging on their behalf are in their best, long-term interests. That is why there is a clear contrasting plan that Territorians will become very familiar with. It is coming back to mind to compare and contrast. That is why you deserve censure, Chief Minister. That is why the tide is turning against you and your government because there is a point of clear contrast. Territorians are going to see very clearly an agenda driven by personal reputation, and a legacy that leaves your name on a plaque rather than something that honours the future generations of Territorians. It will turn around; they will see the difference and they will see the point of contrast.
I know where I want to stand; I want to stand with Territorians. I do not want to stand with a short-term political agenda. I do not want to stand with a short-term achievement of someone who can cut a ribbon and be cited in speeches, in the short-term saying: ‘Isn’t this wonderful?’ Then, in the slightly longer term saying: ‘Doesn’t this look a bit like a lot of other places? Doesn’t this look like a lot of other developments that occurred under this particular style of development at this particular time? Our waterfront has changed forever’.
I want to stand with people who say: ‘I think that a low density, minimal residential with a lot of open space in our own waterfront is a preferred option rather than 40% our waterfront now high density residential’. I want to stand on the other side. I want to create a place where people will be able to go and know that they own it; it is their place - public space - and it is not 40% owned by private development and units. I know where I want to stand.
I want to stand with a plan for our waterfront that has one significant structure - just one - that rises well above the escarpment - an iconic feature that sits on the headland. That is what I want to see. I do not want to see - whatever it is; 10, 11, 12 or whatever - buildings that extend way above the escarpment. There is style here and people want to know that their headland is going to be something that is iconic and stands forever - not as a testimony to handing over one section of it to private development to fund a smaller component which is easy to sell in the short term. Chief Minister, there are those in the Territory who are here for the long term, and it is much more than a wave pool.
I want to see a project that is taxpayer owned and managed, rather than developer owned and managed. I want to see a project that has proper links to the CBD and supports our CBD, that works in train with the development of the CBD. I do not want to see a development that works against the CBD economically. Territorians want to see a development that is staged and is in keeping with the economic growth of the entire CBD, not something that is a short-term fix for a short-term political situation that results in a separation between the energies of two important centres within the CBD. You have seen it in other cities. If you are not so blind that you cannot see, you will see in other capital cities where that has occurred; where there have been agendas that have been driven in the short term and resulted in economic dislocation within a CBD or a capital city. You have seen it, Chief Minister. I do not want to see that here.
When we have a 25% vacancy in our CBD and are having difficulty getting people to come into our mall, we have to be satisfied that what occurs there will be done in a way that strengthens and builds the entire economy of our central city - not work against it. I am not convinced - and nor are many Territorians – that what you have described and are proposing to embark upon, will achieve that.
You speak much of gas and gas and gas; however, when you mention gas, Chief Minister, many know that the gas that is coming onshore has not gone into Channel Island. They know that your capacity to do the big deals is not evident. There is no evidence that you have - other than rhetoric, beautiful glossy brochures which you told Territorians you would never do, fine-sounding words and remarkable backflips - delivered on anything. Pool fencing, of course, springs to mind, but I should not go there. Gas is set to come onshore and there was the opportunity for gas to be fed into Channel Island. It never occurred, as you were unable to broker that deal. Territorians know that, and it stands as a reminder of your inability to broker the big deal. It undermines confidence in this project.
From gas, and as a sop to those who can perhaps be easily attracted to bright, glittering objects, throw in a wave pool. How many times have we heard wave pool? I predict that Col Wicking may be writing a little speech that says: ‘Gas, gas, gas, gas, wave pool, wave pool, wave pool, wave pool’. I would like to see something that is more in keeping with the Territory, and that being not so much of an emphasis on a wave pool, but a free and safe town beach, which would be a significant facility that is …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Government members, you will have your chance to reply. You will want your speech to be heard in silence too.
Mr MILLS: … of significant magnitude and a focal point, which is what Territorians need - a free and safe town beach. I do not want to see a project that is focussed on a residential and convention centre. This is our waterfront. The focus on this and the long-term interests of the economy of the Northern Territory is a recreation and a tourism precinct to drive the Territory economy much further than a short-term project which is based on a block of flats or the sale of units. The transfer of an asset from public ownership to private ownership to pay for something that is easily swallowed in the short-term, but will leave a bitter taste in the long-term, I do not want to see. I want to see something there which drives slowly, and increasingly strongly, the Northern Territory economy and its focus on tourism and recreation.
This was once a development that was based on the wharf. However, that is difficult; therefore, this government has excised the wharf area from this project, further focussing and reinforcing that it is a short-term agenda. It further reinforces that the real agenda is something for short-term gain: ‘Let us see if we can get over this next election if we can turn a sod, if we can show that we have the capacity of doing something’. It is much more than that. This is about our waterfront; about our wharf. I want to see a project which links the whole thing together. That was the original plan, and that is the plan which Territorians are going to take again. That is the plan they will support. Once they understand that you have chosen the quick fix in the short-term, and excised the most challenging aspects from this project, Territorians will increasingly walk away from this government. Ultimately, there must be an abiding sense that that project, that development, is owned by Territorians. It must be in public ownership and developed in a way where there can be access to many small businesses in developing it, rather than a single one.
Going to the next phase of this, to reinforce this government’s secretive, dishonest, misleading and duplicitous actions, they are further reinforced (1) by the inability to present front and centre, and explain to the satisfaction of Territorians very important issues related to this deal, but (2) it is also the defensive action of putting up a human shield. You will throw out names and put them in front of you. You will put up the names of different consortia members and say: ‘Oh, you are attacking them’. You are the proponent; this is your project, your process, your plan and your vision, Chief Minister. It is Territorians who will weigh and balance exactly what it is that you are deciding on their behalf. You have put forward a human shield. You will not present yourself for any close scrutiny. You have obstructed questions in this parliament to give you the opportunity to increase the confidence of Territorians on this matter. You have taken that opportunity and discarded it. The concern in the community - mark my words, Chief Minister - is increasing - it is increasing.
We started this journey with a few steps and we ended up achieving this destination. In the long term, we will begin to build a city of distinction which stands the test of time. I do not want to see a city that has at its hub, at its core, high-rise residential - and nor do Territorians - but a city of distinction that has its character and style that is drawn from the uniqueness of its tropical character, tropical monsoon climate, the geography, the history, and cultural diversity. That whole precinct should reflect that in its entirety. The plan that was drawn up in 1999 reflects all of that …
Dr Burns: Yes, and heights to 120!
Mr MILLS: For the honourable member over there who is so blind that he has chosen not to see, so deaf that he has chosen not to hear, there is, of course, place for a significant structure, and it is important that that does occur. Read the plan!
Dr Burns: I have.
Mr MILLS: Read the plan, and Territorians will also read the plan. They will begin to weigh and measure the two concepts that you are presenting. There will be two concepts presented to the people of the Northern Territory, and I know which one they will choose and have confidence in. I know which one they will feel that they have actually been engaged and involved in. I know which one will reflect the character of the Northern Territory. That is what Territorians want. That is the one that I will support.
This censure motion is one that marks a point of change. It is not just about building heights; it is about the future of the Northern Territory. It is about our capital city. Chief Minister, the future of the Northern Territory is in the balance and, at this point, sits with you.
There will be a clear point of contrast offered to the people of the Northern Territory in regards to their capital city. This government will be exposed for its intent to achieve something in the short term. Territorians will not support the handing over of the waterfront development to private ownership. Territorians will support a project that has its focus on driving the economy in the long term, public ownership and tourism.
This censure motion is one that this government has brought upon themselves. This government’s secretiveness in every respect, from the commencement of their time in government right up to full manifestation in the handling of this project, has been clearly plain for all to see. Their blatant dishonesty and duplicity is the cause of the beginning of the anger that is going to be felt in this community.
When I stood before a number of people at Little Mindil on Sunday and began to speak to them, it was not to score any political points, but to draw attention to the issue of a capacity for openness, honesty and transparency. I am telling you, Chief Minister, address this or the tide is going to turn against you. It was reinforced because an invitation was put to you and you failed to front, as you failed to front a couple of times, particularly in this Chamber, when the heat was on. The offer was provided, or the understanding given to the group, that another representative of the Northern Territory government would be in attendance on a matter of significance. Because the heat was on and it was a little difficult, there was no government representation at all. That sends a very clear message to those in the Northern Territory community who have an interest in planning, who have an interest in the …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: … development of the Northern Territory. That is why this …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired.
Mr MILLS: … government deserves the fullest wrath and anger of this Northern Territory community with regards to their plans …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, we knew that there was a censure coming about the waterfront because we read about it in the paper this morning - we knew. We were a little taken by surprise that it turned up at 10.30 am; but bring it on. The important thing to realise is that it has been a bit of a weasel word from the opposition up until this week about the waterfront project. However, now we have it clearly spelled out.
The CLP, the party that was once proud about developing the Territory – and maybe we always did not agree with them about how they developed the Territory and their priorities – and proudly built a Territory for the future, have stated their position on this very clearly. The Country Liberal Party, the opposition in this parliament, is against the $1bn waterfront redevelopment. That is clearly defined because the Opposition Leader has challenged in here - he has said there will be two plans for the waterfront: the one the CLP hangs its hat on, and this one that is out in front of our community at the moment. A proposal, yes, but a proposal in front of our community. It is very stark, it is very clear. What is contained in the proposal - the enormous benefits and the care that has gone into that proposed development - is opposed by the CLP. We have a stark contrast between what is the government’s position and the opposition, and that is good.
I make a point of what this censure is about. The page that was distributed has a number of different points. As I listened to the half-an-hour speech of the Opposition Leader, he said ‘secretive’ and ‘dishonest’ a few times, and used the word ‘duplicitous’ which is in the censure. However, as far as going through the details of this censure, he has totally failed. He ran out of time because he talked about gas! We were trying to find where gas was in the censure. We were trying to find out where Myilly Point and Little Mindil were in this censure. Points (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) which he read with such ferocity into the Parliamentary Record, he failed to address. The Opposition Leader is censuring me on these points and has totally failed to prosecute any of those points.
On that basis, I should just sit down. It is a totally flawed censure; it has not been prosecuted. What we heard from the Opposition Leader was this spray of words that had ‘dishonesty’ in it every now and then, with ‘duplicitous’ …
Mr Henderson: Secretive.
Ms MARTIN: … ‘secretive’, and ‘be warned, Chief Minister’, but totally failed to prosecute a case.
The Opposition Leader asked in (a) what is the full extent of taxpayers’ financial commitment to this project? He did not even mention it …
Mr Dunham: We have been asking you for two days.
Ms MARTIN: I will pick up the member for Drysdale’s interjection. This is a censure where you are supposed to prosecute your points. This is the most serious motion you can bring in front of this parliament, and the Opposition Leader has simply failed to prosecute any part of it.
I am prepared to address all these issues in my response. However, I make the point that there was total failure to prosecute any of these points during the censure, except for writing them on a bit of paper. There is the commitment to these issues, and he failed to even prosecute them and used emotive phrases like ‘doomed to failure’. I will go through those points, but I would like to make some points first.
In condemning the plan we have in front of us, and the government by saying this is about short-term benefits, wanting to turn sods, and about the electoral cycle, the opposition pays serious offence and casts a serious slur on some very fine members of our community.
Mr Mills: Oh, you go!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the opposition Leader says: ‘Oh, typical!’ This is a proposal of a preferred developer. We have gone through a very competitive process, and it was with a lot of pride I said there has been considerable interest from around this country in bidding for this project at the waterfront: 25 ha and a convention centre. There has been a lot of interest from around the country.
It came down to three bidders. We have a preferred tenderer. To accuse the preferred tenderers, organisations and businesses with stature not only in the Territory community but Australia-wide, of somehow being complicit with government for short-term gain is seriously offensive. I give the Opposition Leader the assurance that I will make sure that every single one of his words goes to the consortium members because they are seriously offensive.
The illogical argument of some short-term benefit or gain to the Australian Labor Party, when we have proudly said that this is an 11-year project - how could that be a short-term gain? This is a project of more than a decade, a project for our future. We have spelled out what the first two-and-a-half years will be if we do reach successful financial close. Then, over the next period of time, the other parts of the waterfront will be developed. How can this be short-term gain?
I am going to make sure that the members of the preferred consortium hear what the opposition has to say so cynically about their commitment to the Territory and the project they have carefully proposed, with no dishonesty or secrecy. To take the ones in this picture here, we have Sitzler Bros’ Steve Margetic. He is in it for some kind of short-time benefit? Is he in it for some kind of cynical purpose, some anti-Territorian purpose?
Mr Dunham: He is in it to make money! Didn’t you realise that? Why do you think he is in it?
Ms MARTIN: Oh, so it is bad to make a profit? It is bad to want a return on your investment and be able to pay your workers? That is bad? We note the member for Drysdale’s comment on this. Steve Margetic is proposing a $1bn project that is against tropical architecture that does not respond to community concerns? I think not.
What about Peter McVann from Knight Frank? He thinks it is a great project and is trying to cope with a number of people who have rung him to say: ‘When can I buy?’ This is a cynical approach? Les Platt, from NKEA Architects, who has been around forever - again, after short-term cynical gain? There is Randall Jones from Connell Mott McDonnell. Is Dick Guit of Barclay Mowlem in for the short-term gain as well? Also Paul Lassemillante from Rider Hunt? Then we have the cynical Territory company - absolutely cynical - one Henry Walker Eltin. Never done a thing for the Territory and takes a cynical approach for short-term gain. Here we have Robert Wilson, who Neville Walker keenly involved in this. The opposition says this is just a cynical exercise from them, it is a poor planning concept and they are only out for short-term gain. Stuart Marks, the final one just in this picture, from ABN AMRO. They are a shoddy organisation as well, according to the opposition.
What we have is this slur for half-an-hour from the Opposition Leader, who is now leaving the Chamber, does not want to listen …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Chief Minister, withdraw that!
Ms MARTIN: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister was not present for this debate for the first half-hour!
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale knows he …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw that, member for Drysdale!
Mr DUNHAM: Oh, sorry. I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, stand on your feet, withdraw that comment!
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw any reflection on the absence of the Chief Minister, Madam Speaker. Has she done likewise?
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Yes, the Chief Minister has. I ask members of the opposition to please go straight into the lobby instead of standing in the doorway and disturbing the proceedings. Thank you.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have a very poorly prosecuted censure that does not even look at the details of what was put on the censure motion, then some serious slurring and offence to some really significant Territory and Australian companies regarding cynicism, inappropriate development, somehow being secretive, dishonest and duplicitous when it comes to what is being proposed.
We then heard the tirade from the Opposition Leader, repetitious and simply emotive, without dealing with the detail. Then the coup de grce was when the Opposition Leader said: ‘There is a better plan’. I have a copy of the better plan and I want to refer to it. The Opposition Leader said: ‘This would be a better plan as we have public ownership of the land, and we have …’ – well, I am not sure what else it was in that this is a better plan. However, when I look at this plan, we have a 120 m spire – there is a spire down there at the waterfront. I am sure we would all be terribly inspired by a 120 m spire. There is a lot of stripy stuff on this map, and that is car park. A lot of this is …
Mr Dunham: No, it is not. How come it is coloured green for open space?
Ms MARTIN: … a lot of this is …
Mr Dunham: You are not telling a lie, are you? It is coloured green; have a look.
Ms MARTIN: I make the point that the member for Drysdale has just called me a liar.
Mr Dunham: Yes, you are!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr Dunham: What colour is it?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, withdraw that.
Mr DUNHAM: I believe I am able to call her a liar during a censure motion if she tells lies, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I have just ruled that you will not call it in an aside alone. Withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, I will wait until speak.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw.
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw the fact that I called her a liar then. I will do it later.
Madam SPEAKER: That applies to all members. Just because it is a censure motion does not mean to say you can use such unparliamentary language. Please remember, you are supposed to be statesmen.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I point out that the point the Opposition Leader devoted a lot of time in his censure motion to how much better the 1999 CLP plan for the waterfront was. They had a plan; I will give them that. Did they ever do anything about it? No! Nothing ever happened with this plan. It is a bit of paper; we found it. There are many details which go with it about how high you can build buildings. According to what was planned by the then government, it was really carte blanche. You could do what you like. Everything was designated: this was the height without demonstrated merits, therefore, you could do what you like. There is a serious hypocrisy to go on about heights of buildings when your own plan, which you are now advocating, meant that you could build higher than anything we have even dreamed of, and right across the whole planning - we have given you a copy of the building heights - you could virtually do what you liked. There is hypocrisy there.
We do have a plan and, despite the fact that the member for Drysdale takes issue with it, there is a lot of cross-hatching here which is large areas of car park. In this plan, we have a lot of car park; that is good. Lots of public space with bitumen - good, very aesthetic. We also have a beach. However, it is not a stinger-free beach, but it is a beach. It is not a safe water swimming place; it is a beach - good. We have the spire, and also a significant amount of commercial and retail space. No residential, because the member for Drysdale says we are not to have residential down there; that is not good.
However, if you do not have residential you will really bring the community down. That is really important. You really have that sense of dynamism about what happens in your waterfront when you have everybody living a long way away - sounds good to me. Not the principle that has been adopted by every waterfront redevelopment around Australia. We know that the Opposition Leader made mention of those in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. Not the concepts that are being used around Australia, where you actually bring people to live in your waterfronts to get that sense of community - no, no. The CLP says the best plan is to keep all of those people right away from it. After going on about how we could have any commercial or retail there because we have vacancies in the CBD, their plan is for significant amounts - office blocks and retail. That is what is incorporated in this plan.
How can the opposition? Even in advocating your own plan, you are arguing against all the criticism that you are making of what our plan is. It is a really illogical argument that you have presented, both in what is involved in the CLP’s plan from 1999 and how it contradicts what, in fact, you are arguing now. It has not been a very effective plan and I welcome you - take it to our community. Let us see what our community thinks about vast areas of car parking and paved areas, and whether the benefits that are incorporated in our $1bn waterfront development are better or worse than this.
However, the fact of life is that we are the government that has moved ahead the concepts that have been talked about for a long time about redevelopment to the waterfront. We have taken it from being something that would be desirable to have in the future, on which a few planning documents were put out and a few members went travelling overseas to have a look at things in South Africa - we have taken it from travel and ideas to something that is going to happen.
There is some sense in what the Opposition Leader said about moving this project along and, somehow, there is a secrecy or dishonesty about doing that at a reasonable pace. One of the key things that was said by our business community in Darwin is: ‘When are we going to have a convention centre?’ We saw how the CLP dealt with the convention centre. They said: ‘We have a site’. They got very excited and said: ‘We have a site, we are going to clear it, and then we are going to think about a convention centre’. Well, they cleared the site - knocked down the Hotel Darwin. Did they build a convention centre? No.
In looking at the importance of having that convention and exhibition centre, we did the work to establish what size, what capacity, it should have. That was done, which is why we are confident that 1500 plenary session and 4000 m2 of exhibition space is a good target for us at this stage. We did the work for that, but also, to stimulate the Darwin economy, to provide that continuity of work for those who work in the civil construction area, we asked how we could bring the two together. Therefore, we put the convention centre strategically at the waterfront to give it the leverage to go ahead with this project. The interest from around the country was intense, and I was delighted. To be told – or accused - of having some kind of secretive, dishonest, misleading and duplicitous process is simply not the facts.
We have had public consultation which starkly contrasts - let me say, which starkly contrasts - with the kind of consultation that the previous government had over the stadium at the Little Mindil site. For the stadium at the Little Mindil site from February 1999, there was no consultation; it was simply Cabinet making a decision and saying: ‘This is what we are going to build’. That would contrast very starkly. ‘Oh, it is a lovely stadium’. And there is the Opposition Leader heading down to the Little Mindil site saying the Northern Territory opposition wanted to see open space there. They rezoned it B5, mind you, and then said: ‘Let us whack a stadium on it’. We will let residents know, because it was the CLP which rezoned the Little Mindil site to B5. This government went out to the community and said: ‘Is that what you want? Do you want B5 on Little Mindil, the old hospital site, and the headland site?’ Those …
Mr Mills: Duplicitous, dishonest!
Ms MARTIN: It is interesting that the Opposition Leader says ‘duplicitous’. Those are the facts. Maybe the Opposition Leader has not been around long enough to know that in my position as opposition Lands and Planning spokesperson, I put in submissions to that rezoning. It was something the CLP did in government. We went out and asked the community whether they wanted to see that. Your idea of consultation, at the time, was to whack a stadium up there and say: ‘Cabinet has made the decision, it will go ahead’.
Mr Mills: In 1999 a decision was made.
Ms MARTIN: The member for Blain is very inconsistent in his arguments. Let us look at this secretive business. We have had consultations throughout this year with our community and have sought in detail what our community would like to see happen in an area like the waterfront. We gave it a lot of publicity because we wanted a lot of people to get involved in this, and we were very pleased with the community feedback. That community feedback was fed to the three bidders and they were required to respond to that. Therefore, to say that there has been duplicitous behaviour, or secrecy - and I have a list here of all the consultations, all the brochures, all the feedback that has gone out to our community through the year. I would read it out but it is four pages long. No, it is five pages long - everyone who has been briefed, and told what the facts of the proposal are. We wanted our community to be able to comment and give feedback about what was being proposed. Therefore, the opposition has not made any proof regarding the case of tagging this as secretive and dishonest. It flies in the face with what, in fact, did happen - it absolutely flies in the face of it.
Let me just look at the details. I only have 10 minutes left, but let me …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: Oh, you can give me an extension of time, if you like.
Mr Dunham: Yes, if you give us the answers, we will. Give us the answers first.
Ms MARTIN: The member for Drysdale said: ‘Give us the answers’, but they were not prosecuted by the Opposition Leader. They were simply not …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, simply get on with your reply. Stop the cross-Chamber chatter. Come on!
Ms MARTIN: I put on the record that this is a most exciting project for Territorians. The fact that we have the opposition, simply for their own political purposes, trying to white-ant it, is a real disappointment for Darwin and the Territory’s future. It is only politics. Be proud Territorians. Be proud enough to stand up and stay it is a great project. Join people like Sitzlers and Henry Walker Eltin in saying it is a great project: ‘We believe in your integrity, guys. We believe in the integrity that you put into this proposal; the commitment you have given to the Territory for 11 years to build something that will make a significant difference to our city’. Yet, what we have from the opposition is white-anting - narky little white-anting - dishonesty in what they are saying about the project and trying to cast the government and the preferred tenderers as having some cynical purpose of their own.
That is not the case. I reject it on behalf of everyone who is involved in the process because I find it seriously offensive - and so will those Territorians who are part of the Darwin Cove Consortium that make up this preferred tenderer status.
Let me go through, as starkly opposed to the Opposition Leader who did not go through, the terms of the censure. The full extent of taxpayers’ financial commitment to this project: I made that clear during the week. We said all along $100m was the leverage into the convention centre and some associated infrastructure. I have said that now for over a year. I do not know ...
Mr Dunham: Plus the land.
Ms MARTIN: I do not know whether the opposition was listening but that was a clear commitment. We said the 25 ha of land would be a contribution, and the member for Drysdale could have popped down to the Valuer-General’s Office and asked for it; it is publicly available.
Mr Dunham: Why didn’t you give it to us?
Ms MARTIN: Because you asked for market value, and that I am not going to give to you.
Therefore, we have the land value on which we will see a very healthy return to government. We will see a very healthy return …
Mr Baldwin: Tell us what it is. We have a right to know.
Ms MARTIN: … to government and taxpayers on with that land. I cannot give you the details of that; it is part of the financial negotiations - which is quite appropriate. If I came here and spelt those out, I would be breaching all kinds of appropriate behaviour in these negotiations. If the opposition does not understand that, then they simply are out of the ball game on this.
I am saying we have put $100m commitment into this convention centre. The land has an unimproved capital value of $25m which we will get a good return on, and the development is one that Territorians will be proud of over the 11 years of the development. As we had in the budget papers this year, there was about $8.2m towards some of the environmental work at the waterfront. This was clearly stated in the budget papers. There was also the payment of consultants and others to help us, because this is a team, both government and private enterprise, working on behalf of Territorians to move these negotiations on and reach a successful outcome for Territorians.
As I said yesterday and the day before, I will come in here and spell out all the financial commitments we have made on behalf of Territorians to achieve this terrific benefit for our city. I will spell it out so you have all those details.
Mr Dunham: Recurrent. No recurrent money? It is going to run itself, is it? Righto. That is a zero.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I pick up on what the member for Drysdale said. Is that all right? He asked if it is going to run itself. This is not a public project; the development is being done. What the opposition would have liked is to carve the waterfront up, half a hectare by half a hectare, and put it out for different developers to develop. Maybe that is what you wanted.
We carefully went about taking the 25 ha, putting it out for a private sector development that would then be sold to Territorians - and they are putting up their hands in droves to buy - so we had an integrated project that could achieve significant benefit for open public space amenity for people in our city and our visitors. We have done it; it is fantastic. Forty per cent of the space in the waterfront development will be public space. The government architect, Bob Nation, said that the government was hoping for perhaps 30% and we have 40%. We have some wonderful public spaces for use.
I know the opposition mocks the wave pool and says: ‘Huh! It is just a wave pool’. It has been very well received. The fact that we have an enclosed, stinger-proof beach, again, has been well received. The fact that is we have two toddlers pools and walkways around the entire project, much of it under cover - more than 2 km of public ownership of this waterfront so that our community can walk around it. We have a sea wall that allows for things such as kids learning to sail, kayaking and windsurfing. We have a public amphitheatre, restaurants, cafes, and some appropriate retail. This is a very exciting project.
Ms Carney: Do you want to answer (b)?
Ms MARTIN: Coming to (b) of the motion, I said I am not going to talk about the commercial value. That is part of our negotiations and I made that very clear.
Mr Dunham: (b) is a no. (c)?
Ms MARTIN: The Planning Scheme amendments are the envelopes. It is your process. The Planning Scheme amendments were put through by the CLP, which said: ‘All this block here will be 120 m high; all this block here will be 55 m high’. These are the envelopes for planning. Take something such as the convention centre. It is 24.1 m high. That has always been established. If you are having a planning envelope, perhaps there might be an aerial. This is the legal framework. Our planners work to this legal framework.
However, we have said all along that this is exactly the same as when you were in government. You put out these blocks. Does this mean that everything in this blue block – which I point out to you - is 55 m high? Of course is does not! It is the overall maximum height, and you have allowed more than that in the maximum height without demonstrated special merit. Under the CLP, you said: ‘Go as high as you like’. You know what Planning Scheme amendments are all about, and this is just, in your terms, a duplicitous argument. For the Planning Scheme amendments, we are using is the same process put through by the CLP. You never allowed appeals to the Planning Scheme amendments. It is up to ministerial decision. Why are you criticising the process you had in place for many years?
I explained yesterday about (e) of the motion, about why we are having both the consultations with the public and final negotiations with the consortium, and also putting those development applications through. It is so that when we do reach agreement - and I certainly hope we do – we will be hitting the ground running. We will be able to - not then, in another six months when we go through those development applications - have it start, and that is very exciting. I am certainly driven in that by the fact that our tourism industry – and I am the Tourism Minister – wants a convention centre, and wanted it yesterday. They did not get it from the last government, and it is going to get it from our government. The preferred consortium won the preferred tenderer status because it was the best bid.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, there was an element of truth in that statement, and that was: ‘there is a stark contrast’. There is no doubt there is a stark contrast between the two parties on this issue. While the Chief Minister would quite happily say that we are out there by ourselves, and criticising the various players in the community who we respect and count many of them as our friends, she must also include in that the Darwin City Council, which is a bit angry with how this is going, the Darwin Business Association, PLAN, which has been involved with this for some months - up to a year - and various people who are now signing her book which calls for: ‘It is time to have your say’. They are having their say, but they are up against time lines that make it very difficult for people to review these documents. The documents lodged last Friday stack that high which, for the benefit of Hansard, is about 20 cm. People want to know what is going on with this, and whether the government is telling them the truth.
With my contribution, I will be able to confirm to people that government is not telling them the truth, and they have every right to be concerned and wary of documents paraded as factual sheets. I, too, will go through the censure motion items, but I will do so in a different way. First, I want to talk about this piece of paper. This piece of paper was able to be commented on. I saw an ad in the paper - I believe it was late last month. An ad appeared which said: ‘If you have any problems come and have a look’. This was the catalyst for anger. This document here is vastly different to the one the Chief Minister is parading to us. It is a document that has an accelerator pedal on it so that the minister can get cracking really early and jam these things through without consulting …
Mr Baldwin: What is it called?
Mr DUNHAM: It is called ‘The Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment’. It closed on Friday, and there were only 15 submissions, which is a problem. However, I guess it shows that you can do these things by ads in the public notices - which I am happy to table - a big ad like that, and it is very difficult for people to actually understand what that means for the future.
Leave granted.
Mr DUNHAM: This is going to be a blueprint for the development of this site for 15 years and objections have closed. We now have minister Burns, who has told us, happily, that this document does a couple of things. First, it reduces the land to which the Wharf Precinct Land Use Objectives and wharf precinct incorporated documents apply. While the Chief Minister can stand up and hold our documents up to ridicule, and talk about what a terrible thing they were, they were actually the foundation document for this whole proposal and they have now been discarded. This will discard them. They are now totally irrelevant to anything to do with down there.
It also discards the fact that some of the issues relating to this precinct saw connectivity between, for instance, the wharf and the city. It has excised the wharf. If you were going to have a public play area with, for instance, a fishing platform - which the CLP built - why would you not put the fishing platform in the wharf precinct? If you were going to have a precinct that had a cruise ship terminal, small pleasure craft, why would you not put the wharf in? The reason they did not put it in is it is too hard. What they have done is excised anything that could be problematic for the developer, they have given them the easy stuff to develop, and they have given them an easy proposal. ‘Let us build flats on the land that you do not have to do anything with. We will take our cut out of the speculative thing that you are doing, and we will use it to build a convention centre and some kiddy pools’.
It is interesting, because the minister, Dr Burns, let the cat out of the bag well and truly with his foreword, which seemed to surprise him yesterday when we questioned him. However, I will read it for the benefit of Hansard. It is the foreword of the document I mentioned, Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment 040032:
- If the proposed amendment proceeds, I intend to direct …
This is the Planning minister:
- … the Development Consent Authority that where any inconsistencies may arise between existing
land use objectives or incorporated documents and the new incorporated document, Darwin City
Waterfront Planning Concepts …
This book:
… is to prevail.
Therefore, what we have now is all this guise of consultation coming to head which we now know about by virtue of this document. This is the prime legal document; it is not balsa wood models in the mall, glossy flyers that go out, or 3D pictures from the developer - it is this document. This is the legal document that will prevail for the next 15 years. People who have been in the business know that. For instance, someone who has been working as a planner for some time - and her name is June D’Rozario - knows that this is the prime document. She said in a radio interview recently:
- I mean frankly I don’t propose any confidence in this scheme at all, because the formal document which
is the Planning Scheme amendment is clearly seeking building heights far in excess of anything we’ve
ever seen.
She has twigged that nothing in any balsa models, shops in the mall, or glossy flyers will prevail because the minister has told us this is the document.
Planning documents are interesting because, generally, they are put in place long before a development might occur. Therefore, they are a guide to what might happen in the future. This one is working backwards, because the minister for Lands already has a model of the development. He already has on his desk exactly what it is going to look like. If you go to his scheme, it roughly replicates the layout of what is going to happen down there. There are some critical differences, however. One that has been picked up by June D’Rozario and others is heights. I do not intend to go too much into height in this debate because it has been canvassed pretty much through other debates. However, for instance, the convention centre will be 24 m high - the Chief Minister just told us. When this blueprint was drawn up, it said: ‘maximum building height 35 m AHD’. Why would the planning minister say: ‘The Chief Minister has told me to go ahead, facilitate this development and the convention centre will be 25 m, and I am going to allow 35 m’. That is the same as this height here.
These are the people who went to the public and said: ‘Your pool fence is over by 2 mm and we are going to knock you back’. However, when you build down at the wharf: ‘Give or take 10 m, we really do not mind’. This is nonsense! She is claiming that if they want to put up an aerial, this is going to give them some latitude. It will give them latitude all right, because as soon as this thing is done, it is unappealable. The Development Consent Authority will go to this document and say: ‘Gee, they have said 35 m would be better, they want to go to 35 m. The minister has directed us that this is the only document, therefore, we will use this document’. Therefore, they can go to 35 m.
If the government is honest, when we give evidence next Wednesday, we want to make sure that all the heights in the plan are in here. It will be difficult for the Development Consent Authority, even though the minister is saying that this is a single development. Those proposals will come through in dribs and drabs, so we will not even get to see them. You will not see them before this becomes law. When this becomes law, there will be other development applications coming through that will call up this document, and they will not be available for public debate because this document will prevail. That is duplicity.
It is the primary legal source; you are seeking to change the area which is the wharf, to take out the ‘too hard’ bits and get rid of all that integration that was planned for many years. The minister has claimed that this thing is a blueprint. When he went on to Julia Christiansen’s show, he said: ‘This is a blueprint’. We know it not to be so. Therefore, the first application that the CLP will be putting next Wednesday is: please make sure this thing exactly regulates those building heights in there so that they do not change.
I want to talk about the stroke of a pen. The minister will have these objections on Wednesday. Anytime thereafter, a report can be put to him, and the Chief Minister has very cleverly pointed out that what the minister says goes. When she was talking about our question regarding why it is unappealable at (d) of the censure motion, she said: ‘It is up to the minister’. Therefore, Friday next week, we might find the green dream - this green book of the government - prevails. So, all the consultations being asked for on foot will come to nought because it is of no purpose.
One wonders why there is so much urgency about this. My colleague, the member for Brennan, was able to give me some recollections of how long it took for the rail development to take place. It was about $1bn. The Chief Minister claims there is some connection between the two in the size of the scheme. That took 18 months - 18 months! During that period, the amount that the public would be paying was divulged. The public was told exactly how much it would be paying. Sometimes that changed and they were told what the changes were. It was debated in this to parliament. The public’s input was divulged to the public, and it was a document that took some 18 months for the various financial consortia to actually settle.
We are being told that so adept at financial dealing is this government that it will be done within a matter of months, financial of close will occur early next year, the numbers are secret because projects of this type need secrecy in their numbers, and we are not even going to debate in this parliament unless the opposition brings on a censure motion.
The process is a problem, because the public is quickly realising that you cannot trust this government, particularly on issues like capacity. This government is incapable - totally incapable - of getting up the Chinatown development that featured so largely in the budget of not this year, but the year before. It was one of those things that was going to solve all the same problems this is going to solve now. We were going to get employment, we were going to get all these things, we were going to get plasterers, concreters all down there at Chinatown. Well, go and have a look, because that is a terrifying vision of the future - a terrifying vision. Get into one of those buildings next to it and have a look at that site. That could be our waterfront site for 15 years.
Your capacity is on the record. The pool fencing debacle will show that they could not even draw up design specs for pool fences. Now they are going to tell us they can produce $1bn worth of buildings. The other problem …
Dr Burns: Are you saying Henry and Walker cannot do it?
Mr DUNHAM: We are saying you! Your capacities are deficient.
Dr Burns: Oh yes, I think you are saying Sitzlers cannot do it!
Mr DUNHAM: Your capacities are deficient! The other problem you have is that there are people who believe that the four pages of consultation the Chief Minister had and did not want to read out meant that their consultation went to some site and it was taken notice of. June D’Rozario has said that that is a lie. She has quite readily put it on the record, and I will quote her so that it is clear:
- These were made as part of a very formal process …
These are the statements and undertakings:
- … and, of course, we see that those promises have been completely abandoned.
It is no good consulting people, getting their ideas and then chucking it in the trash can. What is the purpose? That is not consultation; that is a devious device to pretend that you are listening to people when you are not. Margaret Clinch of PLAN had been consulting for a year on this with the government - a year, she had been consulting. She was most disturbed to find that, at the 11th hour, she too had been duped. You will know, members of parliament, that Margaret Clinch has not necessarily been a great fan and friend of the CLP. However, I can tell you that after a year of negotiating with these people, that she would also have some advice to people who want to vote Labor at the next occasion.
To say one thing and do another is a problem; also to pretend you are consulting and not take advice. Your secrecy on this is still evident today, and there are vast elements of this proposal that are not understood by the people. There are vast elements of this process that are going through in tandem. Some of those, it will be pointless to object on detail, because we already have the foundation source document allowing developments to go ahead, or virtually on carte blanche. The other problem you have with your process is when you call for comment, you then denigrate people as having their own perspective which is wrong. I have told you some of the people who have a problem with this, so do not say to us: ‘We want you to have your say. The CLP thinks you have mucked up this proposal, therefore, you do not like jobs, and you do not like developers’. That is just a nonsense! That same allegation would fall - spurious as it is - to the Darwin City Council, the Darwin Business Association - heaven forbid! - and other groups that are now waking up to this being a problem.
The other thing about process is we do not know who is running the show. The Chief Minister’s knowledge of detail is very deficient. On occasions when we have tried to engage in a public debate, the media and others have been put on to public servants. We want to make sure that the minister who is actually the proponent of this job, being the landowner, should be able to go front and centre and tell us what is going on.
We also want to know what the people want. I believe you should too because, if you are really keen on this thing proceeding, you should do so by way of a mandate. The best mandate you can have to govern is to be voted into government. If you really have the bravado that the Chief Minister manifests here, there is nothing wrong with holding this matter in abeyance. By all means, keep going with some of your planning and negotiation, but it is activation will be an election. We will take this to an election. We are quite happy to take this to an election.
What do the people want? I had a look at the visitor’s book down there. It is pretty interesting that, when the visitor’s book opened on 17 October to 22 November - a period of five weeks or so - there are 11 pages filled with generally positive comment. From last week when people started to smell a rat - from 22 to 30 November, a week - there are six pages. Therefore, in a week there are six pages; in five weeks there are 11 pages. If you keep this thing going and give people the facts - and we will assist with that because we will provide alternative advice from some of the trite nonsense that you are publishing as fact - we will then ascertain whether the public is with us on this.
I prevail on you. A $1bn railway project took some time to develop. You are rushing at this and you will muck it up. The prognosis is not good, given your efforts to date on things like pool fencing and Chinatown.
Let us be truthful and honest. Let us have, for instance, statements by the Chief Minister in today’s paper:
… the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, said the previous government would have allowed 40-storey
apartment blocks.
No, that is a lie. That is a fib. Interestingly, I told the NT News reporter that. My comments are not in there, but that is a fib.
There is a site that is there, an icon site in that document. However, that site was to be …
Mr Henderson: 120 m.
Mr DUNHAM: Do you want to point to it?
Mr Henderson: Yes, just here. 120 m, it says.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, let us have a look at it. There is a site in this document that has an icon site marked on it. That page was not made available to people, interestingly, because the bulk of the site we are talking about is 15 m AHD. In the documents that were released, it is 15 m AHD. This page went missing in action. Now it is back, it is important we debate it.
Dr Burns: Read it out!
Mr DUNHAM: That site there, I will read it out: ‘Wharf,’ coloured green …
Mr Henderson: Maximum height.
Mr DUNHAM: ‘Maximum height without demonstrating special merit, 15 m AHD’.
Mr Henderson: Without demonstrating special merit!
Mr DUNHAM: The site that the member for Wanguri is pointing at was for an icon site. It could have been a spire. The Chief Minister knew what it was because she said she would have been inspired by a spire or a monument - perhaps a convention centre or an exhibition centre. Planning documents of this type, obviously, make latitude for what might come in.
I will tell you what it would not have been: it would not have been a block of flats! That is what it would not have been. We would not have had a gateway to our city with a statement saying: ‘Welcome to Darwin. Here is a block of flats’. That is stupid. That is welcome to Hong Kong. We do not want that stuff here.
When the Chief Minister said we would have allowed a 40-storey building, that is a fib - an out and out lie. We would never have allowed it. You can talk to the people who discussed this document, the people who put it together, and you will know that to be a fact. Let us have a debate that has less of these porky pies in them, and you might find it is a bit easier to run through it.
When you are talking to the people, it would be good to make sure that the opposition had similar capacity. For the vast cost that has been used to parade these documents; this one here has three lies in it. What you should do is make sure that the debate is out there. If you are running the case for the proponent, and you are pretending that you are also looking analytically at comment, then you are also a partner with the proponent who is going to share some of the proceeds from it, and you are going to have a complicit minister who allows anything that comes through to – you actually have a pecuniary interest. What you should do is make sure that there is the capacity for comment from other people.
Cost is a big issue for us. We note that, in the Chief Minister’s rejoinder to the censure, she said: ‘We have $100m for the convention centre, $25m for land’. Well, come in, spinner! Who believes that land is worth $25m? Not a hand went up. Nobody believes that …
Members interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: No one believes that. You are like Jack and the Beanstalk. You set off with a cow and you come home with three beans. It is stupid!
What we have is a minister who went to a table to negotiate with various assets. One asset was 25 ha of Darwin waterfront land. She was told: ‘We will give you $25m for it’, and she said: ‘Deal!’ Can you see why we are getting a bit jumpy? We have $100m for the convention centre, which is going to run itself and will not need any money; $25m for the land, which is a sucker punch if ever I have seen one; $8.2m worth of geotech and all the rest of it; and zero for recurrent. Therefore, when we are talking about how good the wave pool is, one assumes there is energy used to compress the water to provide the wave, there is going to be a person with a little yellow cap tied up under their chin sitting in a chair - and no one is going to pay them. Well, well, well.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Drysdale be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Kiely: You cannot do that on a censure.
Mr DUNHAM: Of course, you can! It will be debated until it disposed of.
Madam SPEAKER: Ten minutes.
Mr DUNHAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. What we have here is three options for the government. Option 1, the developer is going to build all this stuff, build it and run it. Okay, perhaps that is the case. Perhaps you have such a strong relationship that the developer wants to have a benevolent ongoing commitment to this site, and they will continue to provide those vast amounts of operational money. Maybe that is the case. I would suggest that, for some of them, they would say: ‘Well, if we are going to do that, we want to have restricted public access’. The government probably would say: ‘No, we are not going to do it’. Therefore, let us assume it is free, there is public access, and the developer will not do it. This government has to pay, or local government has to pay; it is the only way you do it. You either do it user pays, when people go down to the toddler pool they pay; pay for their car park and all the rest of it. You pay for it, or the council pays for it. I think you might find that the council does not want to pay for it. I believe that, when you go and talk to them, they might say: ‘Well, we have been talking to the government about this and we are not happy’.
You are parading all of these negotiations through at once. You are going to change the planning scheme - here are the buildings, the commercials, the ongoing costs - and you are telling us you are going to get sign-off in January? Do not think so! That is an easy test to have, because one could easily go the council and ask them and see what they have to say. However, the money numbers do not stack.
The Chief Minister told us it was a $1.2bn project. Her colleague, the Leader of Government Business, also confirms it is a $1.2bn project. It is now a $1bn project. People might think I am talking semantics here but $200m - a plus or minus factor of $200m. The convention centre is $100m, so that is two convention centres that get thrown in and out of the numbers. If there is that amount of slop and latitude in the finances, I start to get pretty jumpy - $200m, plus or minus. For people who used to hold their hand on their heart and talk about a $100m black hole, you can understand why we are jumpy about the fact that they do not even know how much the thing is worth. We know it started at $600m. We have the Chief Minister’s beaming photo on yet another glossy here - $600m waterfront. It was $600m right up until May and, then all of a sudden, it became $1bn.
We know that the Chief Minister has not looked at the planning and design merit of this in as much detail as she has looked at the commercial merit. She said that on radio. She said it is the commerciality that brokered this project. If that is the case, we want to know too. We can do it by way of confidential briefing involving the Auditor-General; questions in parliament, which come to naught; and some questions that we put during the estimates process, that came to naught. This is a devastatingly secret project - absolutely top secret - and we have a really big problem with it.
I now want to turn to the furphy of the CLP being anti-development. I just cannot believe that things have changed so much that we could be sitting on this side of the House being accused of being anti-development. What a nonsense! We are sitting in a building that was objected to by the Labor Party. I have a kid going to university which was objected to by the Labor Party. It is a nonsense! We can go over there and have a look at the Supreme Court building and at the various monuments and edifices around this place that were built by the CLP. The port was built by the CLP. The railway line was built by the CLP. The gas came onshore because of the CLP. Because you are running scared, you have resorted to personal abuse. What is the personal abuse? ‘Nah, nah, you do not like development’.
No one is going to believe that - nobody will believe that. That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard: because we do not like the plan, we do not like jobs, development, various of the persona who are involved in it. Forget that! We like the persona involved in it, we like development, we like development on this site. We think the waterfront should be developed - appropriately. If it is going to be developed over years and years, let us get it right.
The Chief Minister said we have to do this so we can get plasterers out there. Well, the NT News ran a very interesting article. They said these are the approvals for housing since January: 606. In 11 months, 606 units. They only want to build 1400, which is too many on the wrong site. Do you really need this filler? Do you really need to give our land away and give preferential treatment to somebody when, out there, all by itself without the government, 600 units were built since January? By the way, they are called flats.
Mr Burke: Where do those developers stand?
Mr DUNHAM: Yes. So, these blokes here have gone out, taken their own risk, hired their own carpenters and plumbers and all of those people the government said we are against, without any - any, any - government support and built 600 units. How do you reckon they are going to make those decisions over the next 11 years or 15 years, when they know their competition is up against somebody who has not only government sponsored land, but the government as a partner? The government is a part owner of the flats. Of course they are going to have a vested interest. I would not want to go to war against that. I certainly would not want to be speculating on my own developments if I was up against a proposal down here that has the capacity to absolutely flood the market. I have no problem with development, and I applaud these builders. I hope the Chief Minister applauds them too. They went out under their own steam and started building.
Should we have units down there? She said there is a stark contrast. Yes, there is. We do not think there should be residential down there. We do not think we need buildings with that height down there. We think the process should be open. We think that people should own their land and continue to own their land. We think there should be an enormous amount of open space and parks down there. We think that that site should articulate with the other major elements that are its next door neighbours, particularly the CBD.
The CBD is struggling, and there is every event that this proposal will put the CBD in a very parlous situation. Only a week or so ago, the Vic Snack Bar shut. People might not go and get their toasted sandwich there, but I do. I know there are another two or three shops going to shut as soon as they get through this Christmas period. We have a big problem with our CBD. We have a precinct - meaning stand alone precinct - down there that will compete against that CBD negatively. We have a wharf development that includes cruise ships, small ships and commercial ships. It has a fishing wharf on it. It has a variety of concessions there. Why would you not include it in it? Why would you not include the existing infrastructure - of which is not much - into this facility?
I was also interested, while I am covering some of these issues, that the environment minister spoke about this yesterday. There are a couple of things she said that I thought were pretty interesting. One was she gave the environmental credentials to it. When you go through some of these books - and it is pretty difficult to do because there is actually three or four of these - I noticed that they are going to delist the Travellers Walk or Chinamen’s Walk. How did I find that out? It is in brackets on page - sorry, it is unpaginated - section 7, 17.17 of the Darwin City Waterfront technical reports. It talks about three sites within the vicinity of the project on the Register for National Sites: all storage tunnels, steam house and Travellers/Chinamen’s Walk, and in brackets, ‘to be delisted’.
Unless you went and paid $20 and bought these four documents, and were as stupid as I was and sat up at night and read through them, you would not know that that site, which is marked on their plans - if you pull out, for instance, the planning minister’s book, you will see that he has done it for you. If you do not know where Travellers Walk is, you can pull out Dr Burns’ proposed planning scheme amendment and you will see ‘Travellers Walk’ marked on it. Well, that is going to be delisted. You would have thought the environment minister, when she spoke, would have said: ‘Oh, by the way, I have changed my mind on some of this heritage stuff, and we are going to chuck out a few of those things’. However, that was not the bit that worried me. The bit that worried me was when she finished her comments, she said: ‘We are getting on and doing it’, or words to the effect of: ‘We are rushing through this thing’. I do not take any great comfort from that. I do not see the need for the speed, to rush things through so we cannot look at it.
The Chief Minister also talked about the complexity of land valuations and how we asked for market valuation, and she could not tell us as it was commercial. However, she could tell us if you went to the Valuer-General you would find out. I am happy to table a letter. I have written twice to Dr Burns seeking land valuations and I will read it into Hansard:
- I would appreciate advice in relation to the value of the land of various component parcels of the
waterfront development project.
I also sought information on the Darwin Hospital/Myilly Point project.
For a month, this minister has refused to give me this. The Chief Minister has now told us that it is $25m. I can see why they are embarrassed. Actually, that is a good point: did the Valuer-General tell them it was $25m and could they table that valuation advice? I would be absolutely stunned and horrified. We also know that not only is that what it is worth now - it should be on their books under accrual accounting - but when Dr Burns gets through his various proposals here, it will be worth much more, and so we would like that number as well.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, member for Drysdale.
Debate suspended until after Question Time.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister and Government
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister and Government
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be voting on the censure motion regarding the waterfront development. However, it gives me an opportunity to at least debate an issue that should have been brought before us a number of times, perhaps, as ministerial statements.
On 19 August 2003, I asked the same question and we still have not had a ministerial statement. I was offered a briefing, but I believe that, when you are spending what was, at that time, $600m - and now $1bn - the public needs to hear the briefings. This is the only place they can hear that. They want to know what the government’s plans are.
We are dealing with planning, which is always a controversial issue. On this side of the House, there are people supporting their preferred concept and, on the other side, there is a concept supported by the government. We need vigorous debate, not only about whether the CLP or ALP plan should be the preferred option, but how it is going to be developed, how much of taxpayers’ money is going to be spent, and what will be the effects on the Darwin area with the addition of approximately 3000 people living in this area. That is almost a whole electorate, if they are all voters. However, it is a fair number of people being put on the tip of the Darwin peninsula.
A lot of questions need to be debated, some of which the Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for Planning have debated. We should be debating issues about the environment. This area was a polluted area, and there will be a lot of dredging and removal of mud from Kitchener Bay. There are a large number of questions still to be asked about the finances and, of course, about planning itself.
I will start with the planning issues first. Planning issues take a while to, basically, sink in. These are fairly complex issues. I know why the public has difficulty dealing with them, because they are hard to understand. I received this letter from Margaret Clinch. I know the member for Drysdale said that Margaret is not particularly pro-CLP. I have never regarded her as pro-CLP or pro-ALP; she has always been a defender of what she thought was good planning. Sometimes we do not agree with her, and sometimes we do, but she has a heart of gold and she battles under fairly trying conditions. She is looking after her ailing mother at the moment and, at the same time she is doing her best to look at these issues of planning.
I will read part of her letter so that it is recorded in the Parliamentary Record:
- Dear minister,
We are asking you to withdraw the current process for changing the Planning Concepts and Land
Use Objectives and the Darwin Town Plan amendment.
This week the public is expressing major anxiety about the redevelopment of the Darwin Wharf
Precinct because necessary parameters have been ignored in the master plan of the preferred
consortium. The public believes it has been seriously misled and has lost any faith in the project.
There is a strong air of mistrust for procedures.
The arrangements are a far cry from the low-key, low-rise, people-focussed precinct that the people
have envisaged over the years. With the current plan, the public will lose a huge amount of
Crown land with major consequences for the future. Much open space is overlooked by buildings,
or degraded underneath them. The road structure is undefined and the parking inadequate.
The illustrations provided by the proponent are deceptive, in that tall buildings are not highlighted
or clearly identified. One building will actually block Government House. Others will block the view
of the green escarpment, which is zoned O1 (open space) and essential to the image of Darwin.
In a working meeting on Wednesday with Cove, it was impressed on me that Cove is a commercial
organisation and wants to exploit the wharf to the utmost. This is not the sort of cooperative partnership
which will produce the best results. Even the ‘interpretative facility’ will not be public, and those visiting
for an introduction to the precinct will have to pay from $14 to $25.
Most of all, the public has been misled about the green escarpment. It is essential that it remain visible. There
has been no trading-off of this. The community does not talk about site lines, it talks about views. It also wants
low rise. The existing zoning is for two storeys. There are too many buildings between two and 30 storeys. You
may wish to consult the executive summary of the SOCOM consultancy to review what the public required as
project parameters.
There is intense distrust. The people want to see the other two master plans …
I have said that in parliament before. I believe we should have been able to see what else was being designed for this area:
- ... it does not please me to hear that Cove may not have the best master plan. They are putting $100m into the
project. They want to get something out of it for themselves and their families, and not have their harbour spoiled.
I will not go through the rest of it, except to quote:
- We … think it is essential for the credibility of the Northern Territory government planning processes that the
present action to establish new Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives, and amend the Darwin Town Plan
be curtailed, until such time as the public is satisfied with the master plan for the Darwin Wharf Precinct.
Yours sincerely,
MA Clinch
Convenor
Margaret raises a really interesting point. At the present time, we have land use objectives set out for Darwin under the previous government’s Central Darwin Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives. The minister, I presume, has introduced this document, Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment 040032, which will override the land use objectives for the wharf precinct. At the same time, we have a plan in the Mall showing what the development will look like. What is interesting is: what happens if the Development Consent Authority does not agree to the planning amendments? Is the minister going to override the Development Consent Authority? Is he going to allow the Development Consent Authority, for instance, to say: ‘No, we reject the planning amendment and we want to retain the existing planning amendment’? If that happens, will the minister override it? Say he does not override it; then we have the existing Darwin land use objectives that do not match the plan over there.
If I was to look at this in the cold, light heart of day, this is a fait accompli. The reason it is a fait accompli is because the government has built a model, with Harbour Cove, set in the land use objectives to make that model work, and it knows that. No matter what the Development Consent Authority recommends, that will not happen because the government has gone so far down this path that it is not going to come back from that point.
I do not think that is good planning. The model should not have existed. If the government had a concept plan - but that is more than a concept, that is halfway to being there – or an idea that we should develop this as residential/commercial mix, then it should have at least said: ‘We will change the land use objectives to allow such development to occur and, when we have done that, we will then, after that has had public debate …’ - whether that should happen or not – ‘… ask the consortium to see if they could do a development in this area under those land use objectives’.
What we really have is a development that has been developed against the existing land use objectives, in opposition to them, that needs to have a change. We know that the government will make sure that change occurs. That is a bad planning system. It is, to some extent, making a mockery of what should be a far more open, transparent and ‘community listening’ process. The community is not going to feel very happy if they put forward all their comments about the proposed planning scheme amendment if they know that, no matter what happens, no matter what recommendations come to the minister, she will override it.
Notwithstanding that, and presuming that these planning concepts will go through, I am bewildered as to why all the residential land is 34 m up to about 48 m. If the government is saying that only 10% of buildings will be higher than the escarpment, why does it not just remove those buildings and give them a special exemption and make sure that the maximum building heights for all the other buildings is 15 m - they cannot be higher than the escarpment? If someone wants to put an aerial on them, well, they can ask for an exemption by putting in an application to the planning authority for that. However, this does not give people any heart that there would be buildings that will be below the escarpment. If the government really believed that, it would make the maximum building height lower. The maximum building height in the existing land use objectives is 15 m. Why that cannot be, I am not sure. It certainly does not send a signal of confidence to those people who are concerned about the escarpment, as Margaret Clinch has said:
- It is not just about looking from the escarpment down, as some people have been concerned about, it is the
view in the other direction when you are on the harbour or on the wharf. You will not see the escarpment
as you see it today.
I do have not a lot of sympathy, I must admit, for the Bridgeport people. I imagine that there is probably a certain Development Consent Authority Chairman who has not much time for them either, because he was involved in some of that development and lost his job because he had concerns about how some of that development would occur. I must admit, in popping down there to see which building blocks which building, I noticed Bridgeport blocks the Esplanade, the Esplanade blocks the Horizon, the Horizon blocks the Indonesian Consul, the Indonesian Consul blocks Withnall and Maley, and the Darwin City Council gets blocked by the lot! The other thing is that the public do not see anything.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Anyway, the public do not see anything. I must admit that I find those comments a bit hard to take, although what it highlights, I believe, is poor planning.
We are looking at problems with high-rise development in Darwin. We now have what I would call one of the most woeful high-rise building to be erected in Darwin; that is, this new 33-storey building - on four blocks of land, 400 people, no open space except a little tiny miserable bit on the fifth floor. To me, that is the poorest type of planning we could have, but they are going to allow that sort of planning. What is the next building going to be? Right next to it to block it out? You could put four of these buildings in that area. Why are there not some requirements that high-rise buildings must fit within a certain decreasing zone as you get towards the sea, so that buildings do not block other buildings. A classic example would be on the corner of Dinah Beach Road and Tiger Brennan Drive. People passing there, at the moment, would notice a whole pile of units being built which block out the units that were further up the hill, which had a nice view of the sea. When you hear one group of people complaining about views, there are certainly many others who may not be living in such fancy units, but they also have problems. I believe we have major problems with high-rise development as regards the blocking of one another’s view. It is an issue that really needs to be looked at.
Getting back to the waterfront. I listened to debate this morning and I deliberately went down to look at the model. I am a supporter of the waterfront development; I said that from day one. However, this waterfront development has gone from a convention centre to a residential development. It went from $600m, and we have not been told why it will be an extra $400m. What changed that development cost? Has the developer said: ‘We need more intense residential development in that area’? If you look at that plan, you need to step back and say: ‘What are we really building here? Are we really building a ghetto?’ That is a very large number of people living on a small piece of land. It reminds me of Kurringal Flats to some extent – not knocking them at all – with the same style with a bit of open space between them.
Mr Dunham: Kurringal on the bay.
Mr WOOD: Well, in style. I am not saying the people – I should ask you who is going to be able to afford down there. I am not sure it will be Territorians; there will be a lot of investors. However, it has that same feel about it, and I am not sure that is the type of dense development you need on the waterfront.
Again, as I say, people can have their arguments which way you like. The CLP’s version of the wharf precinct did allow residential development but that was more towards where the tanks are, where the old Darwin railway station was, and around about where Perkins are at the present time, in that area there. The actual seafront around the wharf was more commercial and open space. That has some merit.
I do not think people really knew, when they said they supported this development, that the plan we see in that shop over there is what we were going to support. I would rather see the government come up with some alternative models so the community has a choice to see whether something else might be better. Perhaps the opposition might be able to find a few dollars and put up a model of their plan. I would have liked to have seen the two other plans so that we would have had a choice. There is a lot of money going to go into this project which is our money. I know the Opposition Leader has spoken about the finances; I have asked that question a number of times. In fact, I have asked five questions on the waterfront project. I realise it is $100m, you might say, in cash. We have been given a price on the land, but I must admit that just giving the unimproved capital value is not realistic. That land there would be worth lots more money for development than $25m.
There are other costs that have not been shown up; for instance, infrastructure. I imagine there would be fairly substantial sewerage, electricity and water requirements for a population of 3000 people. Whose job will it be to put that infrastructure in? I am sure in parts of Litchfield Shire in an area of development, the developer has to put in all that infrastructure. However, as I and people know from the Wickham Point development, the government sometimes puts that sort of infrastructure in and tries to recover the costs later on by the use of those services. I certainly believe that the government should say whether it is going to cover infrastructure costs as well.
On some more planning issues, I ask the government to explain why we need such intensive residential development on the edge of the peninsula. We know that it is going to introduce at least 3000 people, therefore, what have we done to look at improvements to traffic flow? We only have two major roads that come into the – you are supposed to say three, but the two major roads are really the Stuart Highway and Tiger Brennan Drive. We are now putting an extra 3000 people there. What is going to happen as regards traffic flow? What is going to happen as regards public transport? There is a transport corridor coming down the side of Dick Ward Drive. Is the government looking at any way of using that as a public transport corridor - light rail, monorail, anything like that? If we do not start looking at these sorts of issues soon, we will have an awful lot of people - add the 400 people that are going into the 33-storey building, as I presume there are going to be more of those buildings – on the peninsula.
I also ask the government why it has not looked at more open space? It does mention 48% of this land is open space, but how much of that is public open space? Is the open space there for the benefit of the people who live there, or will it be for everyone to walk through? When you see pictures of the model, you see open space between the buildings, but is that open space for the people who live there? Do they have a place to hang their washing, or are places there specifically for them? Is it all public open space or open space just for the people who live there?
Mr Henderson: Yep.
Mr WOOD: I am not sure what the ‘Yep’ was for. Was it …
Mr Henderson: All open space.
Mr WOOD: That is right.
Mr Henderson: There are no compounds.
Mr WOOD: Regarding the people who will live in this are, will the cost of owning one of these apartments in such an exclusive area - that is, the waterfront – be only for those who are wealthy enough to own it? Are we developing a fairly exclusive estate, which is really land that belongs to the people and, yet, people will be, to some extent, restricted from living in that area simply because they could not afford to? If you are going to have residential, why not look at low residential development or even low hotel development similar to what is at the Hobart wharf? They have used the wharves for two-storey high development. That fits in well with the theme of the sea, which is how we should be developing this area. Could I get an extension, please?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted a further 10 minutes in which to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: There are just a couple of other points, Madam Speaker, and I will be quick.
On the environmental side of it, which is another area worth a ministerial statement, the Chief Minister has made some statements about contaminated soil and various issues like that. I would be interested to know what is going to happen to polluted soil. What is going to happen to the mud from Kitchener Bay? We believe that could be fairly highly polluted. The Chief Minister said that would be dumped in the harbour in accordance with the Office of Environment and Heritage’s Environmental Guidelines. Many people would like to know where that is going and what precautions will be in place to ensure that mud, with its potential contaminants, will not damage the harbour. I would like to know about the environmental plans for relocation of contaminated soil and mud.
I was also asked by someone whether anyone has checked the mud in Kitchener Bay for unexploded bombs ...
Mr Dunham: High risk, according to that.
Mr WOOD: High risk? Thank you, member for Drysdale. I have not read the technical report, but I would be interested to know if that is going to be taken into account when cleaning it out of that area. Are there any other World War II sites that might be discovered there? Has anyone done any checks on that?
Also, will all the environmental reports be done before the development applications come through? I presume there can be no development applications until it has been given the all clear. Will those environmental reports be available to the public?
I have only touched on some of the issues, which need a lot more intensive debate. I need a lot more time to study some of these matters. The member for Drysdale bought a book into parliament earlier called Technical Reports, Darwin City Waterfront, which I did not know existed. I was surprised to see that the Chinese Walk, known as Traveller’s Walk, will be delisted. Margaret Clinch, who fought very hard for that - and we got half a walk in the end because the development encroached some of that walk - will be very disappointed to see that it is going to be delisted.
We really should be able to do better than that. We have this huge development; we should allow our heritage to have a fair bit of priority when it comes to preservation of that history because, after all, this is going to be a tourist precinct as well as a residential precinct. However, I would have thought the main reason we are having this is to have a tourist precinct. Therefore, to keep as much of our history there as possible, is extremely important.
Just to finish up, I believe there is an opportunity lost with this development to do something a little different about moving people from the wharf from the convention centre to the centre of Darwin. I still believe we should be looking at something that moves people - something like an airconditioned cable car or a monorail - because I cannot see people at this time walking from the convention centre to the mall because it is simply too hot. If you have the association of pensioners and old-aged agriculturalists, or something, meeting at the convention centre at this time of year, they certainly are not going to walk from there up to the mall. Yes, they might catch a bus, but why not put something there that would attract people to come there? Some people have said a monorail. I believe you could put something like a cable car with bubble type airconditioned little cabins that took people there. It could go right across to the wharf so you can take people from the wharf to the convention centre, up the escarpment, right down to the mall, and maybe finish somewhere near the Darwin Central Hotel. I believe we have to look at some additives. If we are going to make that place feel like it is part of Darwin central, then we have to put a good communication or system of transport for people there.
I have said before I support the idea of the waterfront development. I believe that the residential development is overkill. I am not necessarily opposed to some residential development. However, it is taking away what most people felt was a waterfront that would still be theirs. Even though there is open space, I know that when you get residential people living close to the water, people feel that they are actually on private land.
A classic example of that sort of feeling is at places like Dundee, where you walk along the front of the cliffs there and, even though it is public land, the private land comes so close to the edge that you feel you are intruding. That can be the same when you get development like this, with those fingers sticking out. When people walk around, are they on public land, are they on private land? There is nothing wrong with some residential. It should be lower, and more in keeping with the wharf-type development, as I said, like Hobart, where you see the two-storey development. The number of people should be far less - 3000 people down there is far too many people. We should be making sure the escarpment is visible from the sea, not from the other way around so much, although that is important as well. If you can see it from the sea, you will certainly be able to see it in reverse if that happens.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Speaker, firstly, in my contribution to this debate this afternoon, the opposition has failed to prosecute its censure motion in every case and every part. What we heard from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Drysdale was just a bucket on the proposal as it stands. Obviously, the opposition has taken a view that they would scrap this proposal, and that there would be no way, if they were returned to government after the next election, that this development would proceed. It is very clear for Territorians, after today’s debate, that the opposition would scrap this particular proposal. I think it is very sad, given the enormous amount of consultation that has gone into this development.
The fact is that the whole process has met the highest probity standards in regards to the process. The probity auditor has signed off on the process in the expressions of interest phase, the bidding phase, and the tender evaluation phase, and that has been made public. We are now in a period of contract negotiation with the preferred development.
The first parts of the censure motion talk about the government being secretive, dishonest, misleading and duplicitous. I do not believe that the opposition has prosecuted that at all. In regards to who is opposing this development, certainly the opposition is opposing it, and the people in the Bridgeport building have concerns. However, as the Chief Minister and my colleague, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, and Planning, have stated, discussions are taking place with the proposed developer and the Bridgeport people to see if their concerns can be accommodated, as the people who live in that building have significant concerns. Then, obviously, there are people from various planning groups who will always have concerns in regard to development …
Mr Dunham: Darwin City Council.
Mr HENDERSON: When we look at Darwin City Council, I believe the day should come when we amend the Local Government Act to require the voting records of individual councillors be put on the public record, as they do here, so we can see who is voting for what. Given the political colours of the Mayor at this point in time, obviously, there is motivation to murky the waters. As minister for business in this government - and that was why I was keen to talk in this debate - I know that the large majority of business groups in the Territory are very excited about this particular project. The TCA, the Chamber of Commerce, the individual business associations …
Mr Dunham: The debate is about planning, not business.
Mr HENDERSON: Okay, the Darwin Regional Business Association has concerns in regard to the linkages between the development and the CBD. However, I believe they will be accommodated because this development is about growing our city, bringing people and life back into our city, and bringing vibrancy and a world-class facility of the convention centre, right into the heart of this city. That is going to generate additional business for everyone in the CBD. It will see property values increase and increased commercial activity - given the convention centre and the increased residential dwellings there - which will all bring business opportunities back to the CBD.
The genesis of this debate and, in particular, in conjunction with the original decisions about the siting of the convention centre, is that there is a group of people with vested interests in the CBD who wanted the convention centre built next to their particular hotel or in the city. However, the government took the view that, if the taxpayers of the Northern Territory were to invest in the capital costs of a convention centre, we had a responsibility, on behalf of the taxpayers, to leverage the maximum amount of private sector investment to get a return on the taxpayers’ investment. If we had plonked the convention centre next to someone’s hotel in the CBD, then the additional value of private sector investment would be far less than the $1bn project that is evolving before us.
This is a government that is doing everything it can to maximise private sector investment in the Northern Territory. And guess what? This is an opposition that is supposed to proudly represent the conservative side of politics, and the business community. I do not believe that it is wrong in any way at all that the consortium would expect a return on that investment. That is what investment is all about. When the Chief Minister was reading through the august array of long-term business people who are heading part of this project - people who have confidence in the Territory and have invested before and they will invest again and want a return – the member for Drysdale said: ‘All they are interested in is a profit’. What is wrong with making a profit? I thought that is what drove this country and drove the economy …
Mr Dunham: Their motivation should be different from yours! Don’t you understand that?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you have had your turn.
Mr HENDERSON: … not public sector spending which can only come from the banks or from the taxpayer. What we want to see is private sector investment. We have managed to leverage, as a result of the $100m investment, a $1bn project. I do not think that is a bad return on public investment at all. The enormous opportunities for the next 11 years that it is going to create, not only for the construction industry and everyone who supplies, supports and services the construction industry here in Darwin, but certainly as a result of the convention centre there will be an enormous boost to the tourism industry here in the Top End. That is not a bad return on investment.
Part of this debate has been about what the costs are, what the returns are, and what the financial details are. We have not reached financial close, and the Chief Minister has made a commitment that, when financial close has been reached, then the terms and conditions of that will be placed on the public record. However, this is a public/private sector partnership. There will be a revenue stream return to government, based on increasing property values over 11 years. Therefore, there is going to be a return on that investment that the taxpayer is making in regards to the convention centre and also the land. The terms and conditions of those are still being discussed and concluded. To ask for that level of detail really shows no understanding of how these processes play out.
The member for Brennan would understand. He was not running out there in the public as we were trying to reach financial close on the railway and saying: ‘These are the terms and conditions and what we are putting in and what other people are putting in’. Certainly, with the railway, I had every support from the opposition at that particular time.
Let us look at the benefits to the Northern Territory: $250m in Stage 1; $100m a year in Darwin. When we look at the great projects that are happening in the Territory at the moment - the LNG plant, and at Alcan - yes, many Territory businesses are going to do very well out of that. However, they tend to be at the bigger end and in the specialised end of town. What we are talking about here is the construction industry in the Northern Territory and the tourism industry, which is the backbone of our small business sector. The one thing through the Cabinet process that I have championed, and am very proud to see through this particular preferred consortium, is their commitment to local content.
As I said in answer to a question in the House yesterday, the railway achieved 80%. I am very confident that this project will achieve more, and it will be at every phase of this project - from the design, the engineering, the supply, the servicing, and the contracting. And guess what? All of those businesses that will benefit from this project are businesses which are currently operating in the construction sector. It will give them certainty of a significant project over 11 years. No more boom and bust depending on what major projects may or may not be around at any one point in time.
That certainty has been welcomed very loudly by the Territory Construction Association. I urge the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Drysdale to talk to the TCA about their opposition to this particular project. I am sure they will receive a very frosty welcome from the TCA in terms of politically trying to drag this project down - and for what advantage, I do not know. I urge members to talk to the TCA, the Chamber of Commerce, and the business people in this community. They are going to be very disappointed that the party they once supported could be so negative regarding this particular facility.
When we look at compare and contrast, well, what would we put up? I am not across the details of planning schemes and what have you, but when I look at the great proposal that was put out in the CLP’s particular project, from what I can see here, there is certainly more car park in this particular proposal than there is open space. I can see – one, two, three, four, five six – six car parks, a fair bit of open space and not much else. I believe Territorians deserve a bit more than a car park …
Ms Martin: And a beach.
Mr HENDERSON: And a beach, and a ‘future major community facility’ – whatever that is - that could go to a height of 120 m.
Mr Dunham: Wouldn’t be flats, mate. It would not be flats.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, it was certainly going to be car parks. I would rather have people living in the CBD generating economic activity …
Mr Dunham: You have car parks. You have a six-storey car park.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, cease for a moment. Member for Drysdale, you had your turn. Allow the minister to have his.
Mr HENDERSON: … generating economic activity, population growth in the CBD, extra spending in the CBD, than a car park. I am sure many Territorians will agree.
When the Leader of the Opposition talked about courage deserting the government and we are running away from this proposal, nothing could be further from the truth. I am looking forward to seeing the display that is currently sitting at the top of the mall in the Paspaley Building going on display out at Casuarina Shopping Square. I am going to be proudly standing by that display talking to Territorians about the proposal for the waterfront and our city. Unless I am very much mistaken, this proposal is going to be very widely supported. No amount of knocking and termiting of this project by the opposition is going to put me off from being out there promoting the benefits of the project, not only to the economy, but to the future of Darwin.
This will be a world-class facility at the heart of our city that is going to be a thriving hub, not only for the people who live there, but for the whole community of Darwin to enjoy its open spaces and recreational activities. It will have a convention centre that is going to be the envy of the nation and bring a huge boost to tourism, particularly in the Wet Season. The convention centre, combined with The Ghan, is going to bring people into Darwin at a time of year when we have never had people before.
In respect of the opposition knocking this and calling for a referendum, they can put up their car park and 120 m spire, and we will put up our convention centre and integrated development. I am pretty certain which way Territorians will jump.
Hot off the press, I have a media release from the Territory Construction Association, the voice of the construction industry. I urge the opposition to speak to them. I will quote from the release:
- The Territory Construction Association continues to support the preferred consortium for the
Darwin City Waterfront redevelopment, creating enormous employment opportunities for local
construction workers.
The Territory Construction Association is the peak organisation of the construction industry in the
Territory and has a diverse membership involved in construction, and/or construction service and
supply.
‘The preferred tenderer for the waterfront gives a terrific boost to the local economy’, John Baker,
General Manager … said today.
‘The construction industry in the Northern Territory has been through some rough times over the past
five years. The development will provide local contractors, subcontractors, manufacturers, and
suppliers with the opportunity to become involved in a long-term major project, and also help retain
skills in the NT’.
‘It is expected this project will act directly and indirectly as an economic driver and serve as a facilitator
by which confidence in our economy can be measured …
In addition, TCA believes recent negative comments made in relation to the redevelopment could
endanger the growth and rebuilding of the NT construction industry.
‘TCA believes those who object to the proposed development will have ample opportunities to express
their concerns through the consultation process’, Mr Baker said.
‘TCA looks forward to the completion of the waterfront development, with it adding a new dimension to
the area through its unique and contemporary design’.
A ringing endorsement!
The once-proud CLP which used to champion development in the Northern Territory has been reduced to a pale shadow of its former self, just nitpicking and knocking a project that has the support of the majority of Territorians. If the CLP think that they are backing the right horse by their opposition to this, unless I am very much mistaken, they will regret the day that they brought this on in the House today.
I can say that, if they do not have the confidence to send out the statements of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Drysdale to significant business groups and people in the Northern Territory, I certainly will, to show them where the CLP is at in relation to vision, confidence in the Northern Territory economy, and confidence in the consortium partners who will build, who have massive experience and expertise with developments in the Northern Territory, nationally and internationally. I have every confidence in their capacity to pull this off. I am amazed that the opposition has been reduced to publicly denigrating this project and denigrating the people who have put their hearts and souls into this.
Ms Carney: How do you describe June D’Rozario’s comments, then?
Mr HENDERSON: I disagree with June D’Rozario. It is not often that I do, but on this particular …
Mr Dunham: But is she allowed to say it?
Mr HENDERSON: She is. She is allowed to say whatever she wants.
The opposition purport to be the future government in the Northern Territory after the next election, and they are on the record today saying they would scrap this project. They are comments we will be reminding them of. When they talk about being secretive and dishonest, and bag the Chief Minister for not attending the meeting at Little Mindil the other day, I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition, in his statements to those people, talked about their background in relation to Little Mindil.
In 1997, minister Mike Reed rezoned the Little Mindil site from open space to B5 tourist business - back in 1997. Was there any discussion with local residents then? Was there any consultation? ‘We are proposing to rezone this to B5’. There was not; there was no discussion.
In 1998, the CLP government called for expressions of interest for the development of this site, and MGM Grand submitted a proposal to develop a millennium bowl - a $70m project. In February 1999, the government accepted the development proposal with not one word of public comment - not one word going out to the community asking: ‘Do you support this? What do you want?’ It was hypocrisy to stand down there and talk to those same residents and say: ‘Well, we have rezoned it open space’. What confidence would anybody have in the CLP of their capacity to change their spots from their track record in public consultation?
It is a very sad day for the Territory today to see a party that did wear, very proudly on its sleave, the capacity to develop the Northern Territory. What we see today is a party that, increasingly, looks to faded memories of the history of the Northern Territory; a party that has no vision for the Northern Territory, outside of a car park; and has no confidence in the Northern Territory in being able to go out to attract private sector investment and see the private sector get a return on that investment.
It is interesting that the member for Brennan has not contributed in this debate. I believe the business community is going to be up in arms about the opposition’s position on this particular development, and there will be loud calls for the Leader of the Opposition’s head as a result of his position on this. Today could start the come-back for the member for Brennan.
Madam Speaker, this motion has not been prosecuted. It does not have the support of the Northern Territory government. It certainly does not have the support of the peak business organisations in the Northern Territory. It does not have the support of the government. I move that the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
TERRITORY PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 273)
(Serial 273)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
You will recall, in November 2003, the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act was passed by this House of parliament. This historic piece of legislation provided the framework for settling Aboriginal land and native title issues associated with a large number of the Territory’s parks and reserves in a way that reconciles Aboriginal interests with the government’s commitment to retain the existing parks and reserves in the Territory for public use and enjoyment, while also expanding and enhancing the Territory’s parks system.
The legislation enacted by this parliament is a testament of the foresight of this government and its commitment to resolve issues in a way that brings unity to the community, not division, in a way that ensures the responsible economic management of government resources and maximises benefits to all Territorians.
The Framework for the Future legislation is set to bring about a resolution to the majority of land and native title claims over Territory parks in record time, with the avoidance of protracted and costly litigation. It has resulted in a win/win situation for all Territorians. For indigenous people with attachments to the park, it has provided a sense of relief that at last their connection to the country has been recognised, and that they will be given a meaningful say in the future management of these wonderful areas. For the general public, it has provided a sense of certainty to know these park areas will continue to remain open without entry fees or permits being imposed, and that many tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money will not be wasted in the courts over countless years ahead.
I speak to this parliament today of the consequential amendments to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. These consequential amendments build upon the foundation stone which was put in place through the Framework for the Future act, and provide a basis for establishing joint management arrangements between the joint management partners in ways that are inclusive, transparent and equitable. The Parks and Reserve (Framework for the Future) Act brought together the government’s core objectives of securing the national parks for the future, protecting biological diversity, developing recreation and tourism opportunities, and providing a basis for employment and regional economic development.
The bill to amend the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act now facilitates the implementation of this vision. It provides a way forward to enrich the management of our parks and reserves, by recognising traditional Aboriginal culture and acknowledging and validating Aboriginal land management practices that have shaped the landscape for more than 60 000 years. In developing this bill, the government has taken the view that joint management of parks and reserves in the Northern Territory can provide a wide range of very significant benefits.
These include, but are not limited to, the following: resolution of costly and divisive land, native title and compensation claims, and mitigation of threats to the future integrity of the NT reserve system; opportunities to improve land management overall by sharing information and resources and conducting land use activities in a more coordinated and integrated manner, combining both western scientific and indigenous knowledge; a greater sense of community ownership of management issues and enhanced community involvement in decision-making; improved relationship with neighbours and enhanced regional approaches to conservation, especially in the management of fire, weeds and feral animal controls; an opportunity for the expansion of tourism and allied industries to extensions to the reserve system, and enhanced visitor experiences by increased exposure to an interpretation of indigenous culture; enhanced potential for cross-agency ranger training and exchanges between the NT Parks and Wildlife Service, Parks Australia North and community-based ranger programs; opportunities for reducing administrative overheads and achieving more targeted use of resources in the application of natural and cultural resource management; improved opportunities for building capacity through the sharing of information and techniques between indigenous people and non-indigenous land managers; and enhanced opportunities for indigenous training and employment in the management of country and other initiatives by government in relation to the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of Aboriginal people.
Overall, these benefits provide for a more inclusive approach to park management so that both indigenous and non-indigenous people benefit from an expanded understanding and appreciation of the management of country, as well as improved social and ecological outcomes.
Let me take members through the specific provisions of the bill. New section 22 defines the interpretation of terms in the bill, and new section 23 establishes the relationship between this bill and other provisions of the act. New sections 24 and 25 of the bill enable the minister to secure the valid declaration of those parks and reserves where their status is in doubt as the result of the Ward decision.
New section 25AA establishes that the joint management partners for a park or reserve are the Territory and the traditional Aboriginal owners, and they are together responsible for management of the park.
New section 25AB outlines the overall objective of joint management, which is to jointly establish an equitable partnership to manage a comprehensive and representative system of parks and reserves for the benefit of traditional Aboriginal owners and the wider community, whilst protecting biodiversity and serving visitor and community needs.
New section 25AC outlines the principles of joint management, including the recognition of Aboriginal interests, culture and knowledge, whilst maintaining the statutory responsibilities and functions of the minister.
New section 25AD outlines the process of preparing a joint management plan for a park or reserve which, importantly, retains the current robust process of public consultation.
New section 25AE prescribes the required contents of a draft joint management plan, which will ensure a strong measure of public accountability in the planning process, and in determining procedures for dealing with issues which affect the interests of traditional Aboriginal owners and other stakeholders in the park or reserve.
New sections 25AF to 25AI detail the processes for development and implementation of the plan of management. New section 25AF requires the minister, after receiving a draft plan, to table that plan in the Legislative Assembly. New section 25AG details the procedure for adoption of a joint management plan, which is the same as that for a plan of management prepared under section 19(2) to 19(5) of the principal act. New section 25AH sets out the procedures for amendment or revocation of a joint management plan. Amendment to the plan must follow the same processes as the adoption of a new plan, including tabling in the Legislative Assembly. Revocation of a plan takes effect through the adoption of a new plan created through the same processes that I have just mentioned. New section 25AI specifies that, once a plan comes in to effect, the joint management partners must manage the park or reserve in accordance with the provisions of the plan.
New section 25AJ allows for the joint management partners, by agreement and through the plan of management, to modify the right of Aboriginal people to use the park or reserve for safety or environmental reasons.
New section 25AK outlines provisions relating to managing the park or reserves before a plan comes into operation. The overriding premise of this section of the bill is that the park or reserve will be managed on the ‘business as usual’ basis that was established in developing the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act.
New sections 25AL and 25AM deal with the issue of mining within parks. The amendments do not affect current provisions for exploration of mining in parks; however, do provide an opportunity for the joint management partners to provide an opinion to the mines minister for consideration before granting a mine or petroleum interest.
New sections 25AN and 25AP outline the functions of the land councils in relation to parks and reserves. These relate primarily to consulting with traditional Aboriginal owners and Aboriginal communities and groups which may be affected by decisions of the joint management partners, and the distribution of monies to Aboriginal owners in accordance with the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. This will provide the Territory government with the necessary statutory certainty and protection in relation to the identification of the correct traditional owners, and the distribution of income.
New section 25AQ deals with the creation and application of by-laws. This section of the bill draws heavily from the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park Act conferring on the joint management partners the same by-law making powers as were previously conferred by the former government on the Nitmiluk Board.
New section 25AR clarifies that the lease does not create a subdivision within the meaning of the Planning Act.
Finally, clause 5 of the bill provides for the amendment of the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act 2003 to allow for the regulation of a Parks Land Trust.
The government will be consulting on this bill over the Christmas break. This may result in the need for some technical amendments to be brought forward at the committee stage.
The establishment of joint management arrangements for parks and reserves is not something new to the Northern Territory. In fact, the first formal joint management arrangements to be entered into between a government and traditional Aboriginal owners anywhere in Australia occurred in the Northern Territory under the previous government at Cobourg Peninsula more than 20 years ago. Since then, joint management has become widely accepted across Australia and is rapidly becoming the norm rather than the exception.
Over recent years, indigenous joint management arrangements and partnerships have been put in place in every Australian state and territory, as well as in New Zealand. In New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia, legislation has been enacted which provides for transfer of parks to traditional owners with joint management. Similar legislation has been foreshadowed in Western Australia. The reason for such widespread adoption of this approach is that, in this post-Mabo native title era, such arrangements make sense and contribute to the resolution of native title issues and enrichment of the parks system, rather than posing any threat.
While members opposite may prefer to live in the past and favour the prohibitively expensive litigation course, I am proud of the leadership my government has shown in resolving, in such a positive way, issues that were not going to go away. It is the Territory governments firm intention that the Northern Territory provide a model of protected area management that should become the international benchmark; one that secures the ecological integrity of our natural environment, is innovative and flexible with respect to park management, underpins our vibrant and exciting tourism industry and provides a world-class visitor experience, enhances regional economic development and encourages local community involvement, acknowledges and respects the rights of indigenous peoples, and creates a place at the table for indigenous people to participate, in a meaningful way, in the future management of our ancient lands and outstanding parks system.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE AND BENEFITS BILL
(Serial 272)
(Serial 272)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce this legislation today. It fulfils a commitment made to Territory workers some 10 years ago. The purpose of the bill is to introduce legislation that provides for a scheme for long service leave and benefits for building and construction industry workers in the Northern Territory. Let me provide some background to the introduction of this bill.
In most industries, long service leave is provided either directly by Commonwealth, state or territory legislation or through federal and state awards. In normal circumstances, entitlement to the full benefit falls due after a minimum continuous period of employment, generally of 10 years, and pro rata provisions are available under certain circumstances.
However, this situation is different for the building and construction industry where the itinerant project-based nature of the industry means that workers have to move from employer to employer, often interstate, to find work. The situation prevents workers from accruing sufficient continuous work with the one employer to become eligible under normal long service leave provisions.
In recognition of this phenomenon, all states and territories, with the exception of the Northern Territory, have established schemes that provide for the portability of long service leave benefits for workers in the industry.
Given the very welcome expansion of major infrastructure projects in the Territory, the government has been examining what role it can play in attracting skilled labour. One key factor is working conditions, both in remuneration and the working environment. Recognising the need to make Territory working conditions more competitive, in March this year, Cabinet directed the establishment of the Construction Industry Reference Group or CIRG. The CIRG has been tasked with coordinating a raft of reforms within the industry. Specific reforms being considered by the CIRG that have been adopted by government include: builders licensing; building indemnity insurance; general regulatory building reforms; contractor payments; and the subject of this second reading speech, portable long service leave arrangements.
The bill presented to the Assembly has been developed to suit the Territory’s construction environment, and follows extensive consultation with industry stakeholders. We have also sought specialist advice from scheme administrators in other states, together with a number of independent actuarial reports. For ease of reference, I will go briefly through the key features of the scheme as detailed in the bill.
The introductory part of the bill contains a number of essential definitions, including ‘construction worker’ and ‘construction work’. In this respect, emphasis has been placed on aligning, as far as practicable, the provision of this bill with the proposed Construction Contract Security of Payments Bill, the existing Northern Territory Long Service Leave Act and the Building and Construction Industry Northern Territory Award 2002.
It is also worth noting that the scheme and benefits will apply only to registered construction workers. People working in a managerial, clerical, administrative or professional capacity will be excluded. A key feature of the bill is that, where there is any doubt over coverage issues, the board will have the power to make determinations to rule on the issue.
Part 2 of the bill then goes on to discuss worker registration requirements. The bill requires the registrar of the scheme to set up a Construction Workers Register that will contain the worker’s employment details, including details of days worked and normal pay. Employees and contractors will be eligible to apply for registration under the scheme, and eligible service from 1 January 2005 will be counted towards the accrual of a long service leave benefit. Part 2 also includes provisions covering the deregistration of a person under the scheme.
Part 2 of the bill also details conditions for the accrual of long service leave credits. Subject to any determinations made by the board, the registrar will credit a registered worker with 6.5 days for each 260 days of qualifying service. After a period equivalent to 10 years of service, registered workers will be entitled to 65 days of long service leave. Thereafter, the worker will be entitled to 32.5 days leave after each five years of service. Special arrangements will apply to employees who die, retire or cease to perform construction work.
Part 3 of the bill addresses the requirement for the registrar of the scheme to establish a Construction Employers Register. Construction employers must register under the scheme and provide information to the registrar. Penalties apply to those who fail to register or provide information. This part also requires every registered employer, after the end of each six months reporting period, to provide a report to the registrar that includes the name of each employee, the number of days of service of each employee, and any long service leave granted by the employer during the current reporting period. This is necessary to assist in maintaining the viability of the scheme, particularly in regard to the integrity of data and employment records.
I turn to Part 4 of the bill. This part deals with the funding of the scheme. I should point out, at this stage, existing schemes in other states are financed and funded through two distinctly different methods: a levy on building projects over a certain size, with payment made at the time of registering the project by the prime developer or permit holder; or direct payment by the employer of an actuarially determined amount of the employee’s ordinary or normal pay.
After considerable consultation and deliberation, the government has opted for a project levy model. A levy will be determined in the regulations and will apply to construction projects costing $200 000 or more. Residential construction complying with the Building Code of Australia class 1a(i), which is a single detached house, and class 10, a non-habitable building or structure - for example, a private garage, shed, fence, swimming pool, etcetera - will be exempt from the levy. The levy must be paid before the commencement of construction work of, if approved by the board, at a later time, or through instalments. Interest charges would apply for late payment.
The bill empowers the board, if necessary, to determine the point at which work commences, the cost of the construction work, and the party liable for payment of the levy, which would usually be the developer of the project. Penalties will apply where there has been a failure to notify the board of the construction work, and the levy will apply to both Territory and Commonwealth government projects. The government recognises that decisions of the board have potential significant financial implications, particularly in the case of very large projects and, for this reason, the board provides for a reconsideration and review mechanism through the board and the local court, if necessary.
The next part of the bill details the administration of the scheme and the establishment of the board. It is intended the scheme will be established as a government statutory body administered by a tri-partite board of equal numbers of employer and employee representative, with an independent chairperson and other representatives appointed by government. All members of the board will be appointed by the minister. The board’s corporate name will be NT Build.
In the administration of the scheme, two of the board’s critical powers will be the ability to borrow and invest money for the scheme, and the ability to make determinations that will contain all of the essential detail required for the effective and efficient operation of the scheme. It is intended, at least for the initial use of the scheme’s operation, that the board would meet on a regular basis, and at least monthly. The board is not an agency within the meaning of the Financial Management Act. However, this bill will require it to comply with all normal accounting and reporting arrangements, including the preparation and submission of annual reports detailing operations and finances of the scheme.
The scheme registrar will be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the scheme and is, therefore, a critical position. For this reason, it will be a statutory appointment within the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. Staff may be employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and made available by the Commissioner for Public Employment. The registrar will have the power to inspect construction sites and to seek information from employers and workers. When performing the registrar’s inspectorial functions, he/she will be required to carry an authorised identity card. The registrar will also have the power to delegate any of his/her functions, including the duties of inspector. The Commission for Public Employment is currently responsible for the Northern Territory Long Service Leave Act and for the Public Holidays Act, both of which apply to private sector employment. It is for this reason that the registrar is based in the Office of the Commissioner. This may change as the scheme develops and matures.
An essential element of the bill is that it provides the mechanism for the minister to enter into a reciprocal agreement with the ministers responsible for the administration of such schemes in all states and the Australia Capital Territory. It is important to note that the reciprocal agreement does not actually transfer entitlements across or between jurisdictions; it simply provides for recognition of service and payment of benefits according to the different jurisdictional provisions. For example, a worker who completes a total of 10 years service of which two years was in the Northern Territory, three years was in the ACT, and an earlier five years in Tasmania, would receive a total benefit calculated by the board having regard to the monies paid by the two interstate schemes to the NT scheme, and the periods of employment.
The final division of this part of the bill goes to the issues of the board’s and scheme staffs’ protection from liability. This provision is similar to most legislation of this nature. The bill also requires the minister to appoint an actuary to review the scheme’s administration and financial state at commencement of the scheme and every three years thereafter.
The last part of the bill, Part 6, covers transitional provisions at commencement of the scheme. During the consultation phase of this project, some employer organisations were firmly of the view that no retrospectivity provisions should apply at the schemes commencement. However, the government is strongly of the view that this would disadvantage current employees, particularly those with significant service with the same employer. Consequently, the bill makes provision for employers to pay to the board an amount that equates to the employee’s previous service. It also allows employers to pay an amount to the scheme and to transfer prior service to the scheme in certain circumstances. Where an employee has already accrued an entitlement to long service leave under the existing Northern Territory Long Service Leave Act, that entitlement would not be affected by the introduction of this bill.
This scheme will place Northern Territory construction industry workers on an equal footing with their counterparts in other states, and greatly assist in the recruitment and retention of skilled workers to the Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT (POWERS AND LIABILITY) BILL
(Serial 268)
(Serial 268)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
This bill seeks to amend the Police Administration Act in a number of ways. Primarily, this bill will put into place a new regime dealing with claims of alleged tortious acts by members of the police force. As members will recall in the October sittings, I intimated that I would be looking to address the concerns in the member for Macdonnell’s bill (Serial 213) in these sittings. I am pleased to say that we have improved on, and achieved the objectives, of what the member for Macdonnell was attempting to do. However, this bill does more than introduce a new vicarious liability scheme; it also makes several other substantial reforms. In a nutshell these amendments will:
- (a) replace section 163 (vicarious liability);
constable’s period of probation;
lawful custody; and
manufacturing equipment’.
I will deal with each amendment in turn.
In relation to the amendments to section 163 of the act, it is intended to repeal and replace the scheme for claims against police. The proposed scheme is substantially the same as the Police Legislation Amendments (Civil Liability) Act 2003 (New South Wales), which commenced on 1 January 2004.
As I noted in my response to the House on 5 October 2004, this is a complex area of law. It is made more difficult by the fact that members of the police force are not ‘employees’. Vicarious liability is a common law doctrine relating to the issue of an employer’s liability for the actions of their employee. Generally speaking, the Crown cannot be vicariously liable for the actions of an independent statutory office holder such as a member of police. It is for this reason that section 163(1) of the act makes the Crown liable for a member’s torts in the like manner as a master is liable for the torts committed by a servant in the course of employment.
Another problem is the interaction of sections 162 and 163 of the act. Section 162 provides a limitation period of two months in which a plaintiff has to commence an action against a member for anything ‘done in pursuant of this act … and not otherwise’. Unfortunately, the court is not in the position to be able to make a determination about the limitation, or the vicarious liability of the Crown, until all evidence has been presented to it. This places the member in the position of being weighed down with an action that may have little prospect of success. This is an unfair burden on the member. The courts have interpreted section 162 as meaning the two-month limitation period only applies where the member acted in good faith in the course of the member’s duties. Where the member’s actions were serious or wilful, the two-month limitation period does not apply. If the member’s conduct is in this category, then not only will the limitation not apply, but the Crown will not be liable.
I will briefly discuss the existing vicarious liability provision. As it currently stands, a member seeking to sue a member of the police force for an alleged tort may sue the member personally. There is no requirement to join the Crown to the proceedings. Section 163(3) enshrines the public policy view that the Crown is not liable to pay damages in the nature of punitive damages, as the court will only award those damages to punish or deter the defendant for their conduct. The experience in the Territory is that, in most cases where the court fines for the plaintiff, the court has not awarded punitive damages. In those instances, the Crown meets the payments of the damages, even though the Crown may not have been party to the claim. However, there have been two cases where punitive damages were awarded against police.
The threat of action and the stress of ongoing court proceedings places an undeserved heavy toll on members whose job of policing has its own inherent difficulties. We intend rectifying this by ensuring a plaintiff cannot directly sue a police officer for a police tort claim. A police tort claim means a claim for damages, including punitive damages for a tort allegedly committed by a member or a former member in the performance or purported performance of their duty. This does not, of course, prevent claims against police officers alleging that the negligence occurred other than in the course of their duties.
Under the proposed scheme, a person can only initiate a claim in the name of the Territory and the Territory must, as a result, make an election whether or not it would be vicariously liable in any award of damages. If the Territory denies it would be liable, then the court must make any orders it considers appropriate to enable the plaintiff to amend the existing originating process in joining the member. The plaintiff only has two months from the date of the order to amend the originating process, otherwise the plaintiff will be barred from doing so.
In relation to a claim of punitive damages, the plaintiff is unable to seek this remedy without the leave of the court. If the court grants leave, the plaintiff may join the member.
The proposed section 148G provides that the vicarious liability provisions do not affect a person’s rights they would otherwise have but for these provisions.
These amendments will apply to a tort committed or allegedly committed prior to the commencement of the new scheme, but only where any legal proceedings have not commenced at the time of commencement of the legislation.
The new scheme is intended to regulate the manner in which a person can sue a member of the police force. By virtue of their powers, members of the police force may be required to perform functions or exercise powers under other acts, often in the capacity of a public official. There are a large number of acts that give police additional powers or functions. Some of those acts also contain protection from liability provisions that apply both to employees of the relevant agency and police alike. Unfortunately, not all the protection from liability provisions are identical, so each provision needs to be addressed based on the protection it provides.
It would seem, however, that the provisions fall in three categories. They include:
- the protection from both civil and criminal liability for public officials (which includes police).
The protection includes the Territory;
The protection includes the Territory; and
where the Territory is not included.
Ancillary amendments have been made to ensure the new regime does not unintentionally affect existing rights, liabilities or procedures.
Finally, I note that the Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act 2003 will apply in relation to claims for personal injuries. The amendments in this bill do not affect the operation of that act with respect to personal injuries caused by police officers.
I now turn to the extension of the Commissioner of Police’s power of delegation. Section 14(3) of the act provides the Commissioner of Police with the power of delegation. However, it is limited to delegations under this act. As a result, unless another statute conferring powers or functions on the commissioner contains a similar power of delegation, the power may not exist. Administrative convenience and workability have long been recognised as compelling reasons for the power to delegate, as parliament did not intend the commissioner to exercise all of his powers and functions personally. This amendment is twofold: first, it gives the commissioner the power to delegate to a member any of his powers or functions under any act and, second, it recognises that professional civilian employees perform functions that would administratively benefit from a delegation of power.
In the second instance, there is no power for the commissioner when he is performing his functions as the chief executive officer to delegate to a civilian employee. Civilian employees undertake a wide range of activities within the police force and, in some cases, have the control or management of members; for instance, in the field of forensic services. Alternatively, an employee may be administering functions pursuant to the laws of another act, such as the Information Act. In either case, the commissioner or the chief executive officer, as the case may be, is unable to delegate any of his powers. This amendment will enable him to do so. In considering whether to exercise the powers of delegation, the commissioner or the CEO must be satisfied the person has the appropriate qualifications or experience to exercise the power or perform the function. The commissioner is unable to delegate to a civilian employee any operational powers or functions.
In some cases, the Commissioner of Police is required to exercise this power personally; for example, under section 40 of the Associations Act. There may be other similar instances, and the Department of Justice will undertake a review of its acts to ascertain whether this is the case.
In relation to search warrant powers, these amendments are only intended to bring consistency between the various types of warrants that may be issued. They are necessary to afford protection to those members of the police force who are authorised to search and seize, or assist in the search and seizure under a warrant. Because the common law, rightly, jealously guards an individual’s rights and privacy, those rights need to be balanced by a statute against the public interest in having an effective criminal justice system. To do this, courts strictly construe any exercise of power under the execution of a warrant. Anomalies or uncertainties in interpreting the width of the power may potentially lead to an action against the member in certain circumstances.
Where a warrant is issued under section 120B of the act authorising the search for dangerous drugs, the authorised member may stop and detain a person, ship or vehicle for the purposes of this search. Whilst being detained, the person is in lawful custody. No such power exists on the issue of a warrant to search for things relating to a general offence under section 117.
In addition, these amendments will allow a member of the police force to apply for a warrant to stop and search a train. They will also include an aircraft under section 117(2) of the act. Equally, police will be given the power to seize any chemical precursor and drug manufacturing equipment for the purposes of section 120BA. The term ‘precursor’ has the same meaning it has in the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Ancillary amendments have also been made to make the relevant provisions to give them more plain English reading.
I now turn to the amendments to the probationary period of a member with the rank of constable. Section 16A, in conjunction with section 16(1A), creates an obligatory probation period of two years. In some cases, this inflexible period leads to inequities, especially when the member joins the police force with special skills and experience gained from a police force from another jurisdiction. This amendment will allow the Commissioner of Police to administer the discretion equitably in all cases. There will be no minimum period of probation.
The final amendment gives police the power to search any person they take into lawful custody. Currently, section 114 of the act restricts police to searching persons who are in lawful custody on a charge of an offence. Police take people into lawful custody for a range of reasons. For example, a person may be held to enable police to question the person or undertake an investigation or further investigations. The lack of a power to search any person taken into lawful custody, or who initially attends the watch-house, poses a risk to the police, other inmates and to the person themselves. This amendment will enable police to perform a non-intimate search on that person.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 262)
(Serial 262)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to make it an offence, with an appropriately high penalty, to assault, obstruct or hinder a person who is providing assistance to a third party. It has been long recognised in all states that police officers must be free to perform their duties without being obstructed or hindered and, certainly, without being subjected to assaults. Our community recognises the excellent and often challenging work done by the police force, and our legislation reflects this by providing severe penalties for those who commit assaults on, or obstruct the work of, the police.
It is somewhat anomalous that the same protection is not afforded to others in our community who perform important tasks to save, protect, care for, or go to the help of others, frequently in an emergency setting. It is, of course, already an offence to assault another person, but this amendment is much broader in its application. It does not limit itself to providing legislative protection to certain groups of people at the expense of excluding other groups.
This bill provides that it is an offence if a person assaults, obstructs, or hinders another person who is providing rescue, resuscitation, medical treatment, first aid or succour of any kind to a third person. One group of workers who clearly fall into this category are ambulance officers. Ambulance officers provide an excellent service for Territorians, in often very difficult and emotionally-charged circumstances. It is hard to imagine why anyone would deliberately obstruct or hinder an ambulance officer who is going to provide help to an injured or sick person. However, sadly, it does happen and such incidents are now not uncommon.
It was only a few months ago, in Darwin, that two ambulance officers went to the assistance of a sick person who needed care and attention, and the ambulance officers were themselves set upon by hooligans, forcing the ambulance officers to flee, as they feared for their own safety. Consequently, they had to leave the injured person without help, and thus placed that person’s physical health and wellbeing in jeopardy. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable to most members of our law-abiding community, and this bill provides appropriate penalties for such cowardly and abhorrent behaviour.
The bill provides that if a person assaults, obstructs, or hinders another person who is providing assistance to another, the person is liable to a term of imprisonment for five years. If the person receiving assistance consequently suffers harm, or their life is endangered by the action, the penalty is increased from five years to seven years. The bill also protects a person who is taking action to prevent injury to a third person who is in immediate risk of being injured. An example would be where a member of the community is assaulted while trying to protect a third person from injury, such as holding back a distraught bystander on the scene of an accident.
The bill extends protection also to firefighters who may be assaulted while attempting to put out a fire. The members and volunteers of the NT Emergency Services, and the volunteers and auxiliaries of the NT Fire and Rescue Service, do an extremely demanding and dangerous job, and it is appropriate that there are severe penalties for persons who assault or hinder firefighters who are engaged in putting out fires to save the property and, possibly, lives of others.
It is sad that we need such legislation in today’s society. I am aware that the member for Macdonnell recently introduced two bills which provided increased penalties for persons who assaulted emergency workers. Whilst I commend the honourable member for trying to protect emergency workers, I believe that the amendment should not have been limited to just emergency workers. It is important to provide the same protection for everyone, whether they be ambulance officers, a firefighter, or a member of the community who goes to the aid of a person in need - they are all good Samaritans and deserve the same level of protection. This bill is really about providing a protective hand to those Territorians who give a helping hand.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members in this semi-darkness in which I stand.
Debate adjourned.
BUILDING AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 274)
(Serial 274)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Transport and Infrastructure): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill amends the Building Act to address three distinct matters that are contained in three separate parts of the bill. The first is to clarify the powers of the Building Practitioners Board; the second is the validating provision to validate, retrospectively, all action taken in relation to declared building areas since 1993; and the third is to legislate to address an impasse on certificates of occupancy for works done prior to 1993. The first matter follows a decision of the Supreme Court; the second matter follows a decision of the Magistrates Court; and the third matter follows legal advice on liability and the legality of current practice.
These matters address existing provisions and are in contrast of the Building Amendment Bill that I introduced into the House on 14 October, which covered the new initiatives of registration of residential builders and home warranty insurance.
I will now address the three separate matters in turn. As Part 1 of the bill deals with preliminary matters, the three matters are described in Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 of the bill. I will deal firstly with the powers of the Building Practitioners Board. First, I will address the matter contained within Part 2 of the bill that deals with, as I have said, the powers of the Building Practitioners Board and the Director of Building Control.
The Northern Territory Building Act 1993 established a building control system that is supported by private sector certification, with registered building practitioners having the major certification role and responsibility within the building control process. In recognition of the important role that private building practitioners have in the private certification system, the Building Practitioners Board was established under the act to register and monitor the performance of all building practitioners, and take appropriate disciplinary action where individuals do not meet their legislative responsibilities. The board is comprised of members appointed by the minister having experience in the building industry or matters connected with the building industry. The minister may also appoint the Director of Building Control to the board. The purpose of the board is to ensure that the qualifications and performance of building practitioners is commensurate with their responsibility under the Building Act to the Northern Territory community and government.
The introduction of the Building Act 1993 changed the government’s role from one of operational administration of building control, to one of supporting private sector professionals in their achievement of appropriate building standards.
The Building Advisory Services Branch of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning, and Environment audits the performance of building practitioners in the building control system to ensure that industry participants fulfil their obligations under the Building Act 1993. As a result of this auditing, the board has held a number of disciplinary hearings in relation to the performance of building practitioners.
In January 2002, the performance of a building practitioner was referred to the board and an inquiry was commenced to ascertain whether breaches had been committed under the Building Act 1993. Based on legal advice, three members of the board were selected to make up an independent inquiry panel. The inquiry panel commenced proceedings on 26 August 2002. On 2 September 2002, the counsel for the building practitioner applied for and was granted an interim injunction in the Supreme Court preventing the panel continuing the inquiry. The grounds for the injunction were apprehended bias, lack of jurisdiction as the board delegated its disciplinary powers to three members of the board, and a breach of the principle of procedural fairness.
On 26 August 2003, the Supreme Court deemed that the disciplinary inquiry into the conduct of the building practitioner was invalid and null and void. The reasons given were twofold; namely, that the board bifurcated and delegated its disciplinary powers – and I am quoting here - ‘… to only some of their number in the absence of an express power to do so’, and that a meeting of the Director of Building Control with the inquiring panel in the absence of the parties created a reasonable apprehension that the panel might not bring an impartial or unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the allegations against the plaintiff.
The decision has brought into question the ability of the board to effectively monitor and discipline building practitioners. Given that any future action taken under the current legislative provisions could be threatened by similar applications in the Supreme Court, legislative amendments are required to ensure that the building practitioners can be held accountable. While audits are consistent with the object of the act, legal advice is that there is no express power in the Building Act for anybody to conduct them. Therefore, failure to comply with any audit requests does not carry any statutory sanction. The functions and powers of the Director of Building Control are to be expanded to cover the auditing and investigation of complaints of building practitioners and building works. The director is to be given power to prosecute matters of conduct and performance of building practitioners to the board.
Traditionally, the director has been appointed as a member of the board, as allowed under the act. However, the director has declared an interest and not participated in the deliberative phase when bringing these matters as a result of audits to the board. Nevertheless, the director’s membership on the board can, and has, created a reasonable apprehension that the board may not bring an impartial or unprejudiced mind to any issue brought before the board by the director. Accordingly, the bill states that the director is not to be appointed to the board.
The composition and powers of the board in relation to the conduct of inquires are to be better defined. Presently, the board performs two roles in that it produces the evidence against the practitioner and judges that evidence against the evidence produced by the practitioner. It is the prosecutor and judge. This dual role has the potential for bias. Therefore, it is proposed to restructure the role of the board so that it acts only in the capacity of adjudicator. The board is to be given the power to form an inquiry panel from its membership appropriate to the category of practitioner under inquiry.
It is proposed to expand the membership of the board to include at least one person with legal qualifications. This person could be appointed as a standing chair of the board’s inquiry panel to ensure that principles of law and procedural fairness are followed. Under the provisions of the bill, the board, through an inquiry panel, may reprimand a person; require a person to pay the costs of, or incidental to, the inquiry; require a person to give an undertaking not to do a specified thing; impose a fine; suspend registration for not more than three years; or cancel registration. If an inquiry makes a finding favourable to a registered building practitioner, the board may pay that practitioner’s reasonable costs of, and incidental to, the inquiry.
I will now address the second matter which relates to the validation of declared building areas which is contained in Part 3 of the bill. The Northern Territory Building Act 1993 established a building control system that is based on its application to the parts of the Territory commonly referred to as declared building areas. Section 6.2 of the Building Act 1993 states:
- The minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare that all or any of the provisions of Parts 4 to 13 (inclusive)
apply in and in relation to parts of the Territory specified in the notice ...
Parts 4 to 13 of the Building Act 1993 cover building certifiers, building standards, building permits, commencement, inspection and certification of building work, occupancy permits, protection of adjoining property, enforcement of safety and building standards, building appeals, general enforcement provisions, and liability.
On 29 September 1993, the Government Gazette published an instrument signed by the then minister. This was part of the commencement of operation of the Building Act 1993 for the purposes of section 6(2) of the act. This instrument stated that all provisions of Parts 4 to 13 apply to parts of the Territory designated in the Schedule and, I quote:
- … included within a black border on the respective numbered map specified in the Schedule held in the office
of the Director of Building Control.
During 2003, the Director of Building Control initiated a prosecution action in the Magistrates Court in respect of an illegal building at Wagait Beach, Mandorah. On 19 March 2004, the magistrate found that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the property in question at Mandorah fell within the jurisdiction of the act. This was because the prosecution had to prove that the relevant map was held in the physical office of the Director of Building Control on 1 September 1993. Evidence was, therefore, needed from a witness who actually saw the map in the office of the Director of Building control on that date. Due to the time that had elapsed and the staff changes, the prosecution could not produce evidence required and, accordingly, the prosecution failed and the charges were dismissed. In practice, there was and is a widespread understanding by building practitioners in those parts of the Northern Territory that are declared building areas. The case was lost on a technicality and the magistrate’s decision brought into question the validity of the 1993 declaration of building control areas.
Given the ramifications of the decision, legal advice was sought on whether there may be grounds for appeal against the decision of the magistrate. Advice was received to the effect that an appeal was not likely to succeed. A legislative response was, therefore, chosen to put the matter beyond doubt. On legal advice, a new notice pursuant to section 62 was published in Gazette S29 on 16 September 2004. This notice included full technical descriptions and maps, and was signed by the minister. An erratum to correct typographical errors and a corrigendum to correct a reference in the technical descriptions were gazetted on 17 November 2004.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the act so that the recent notices in the Gazette are deemed to have been in effect from 1 September 1993. It has retrospective effect and validates all actions taken under Parts 4 to 13 of the act. I stress that this action makes no change to the declared building areas as they were commonly understood in 1993.
In conclusion, the matter of certificates of occupancy issued for works approved before 1993 is contained in Part 4 of the bill. The Building Act 1993 repealed the Building Act 1983. However, the effect of transitional provisions contained in section 170 of the Building Act 1993 is that the Building Act 1983 continues to have general application in respect of building works completed between its commencement and its repeal.
In particular, section 40 of the Building Act 1983, obliges the Director of Building Control to issue a prescribed certificate, ‘a certificate of occupancy’, certifying that the building work has been completed in accordance with the building permit, and that the building, as erected or altered, is fit for occupation. Section 41 of that same act makes occupation of any building illegal unless there is a certificate in respect of that building. It should be noted at this stage that there is no legal requirement to have a certificate of occupancy to sell a property.
Since the introduction of private certification in September 1993, the policy and practice has been to issue certificates of occupancy for all building works constructed prior to that date, subject to certain conditions. The building works included those covered by a building permit previously issued by the Northern Territory government, or other works such as those undertaken by a government body, or done before the subject land was included in a declared building area. In all cases, owners have been obliged to provide certification from private building practitioners that all works - whether engineering, glazing, termite treatment and so on - complied with the requirements of the day. The policy extended to building works approved prior to the commencement of the Building Act 1983. Such building works were regulated by the Building Ordinance 1955.
The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment has encountered many practical problems in implementing this policy. Invariably, over the years, unapproved works have occurred on a subject property. The records are generally incomplete. Legal complexities abound. Many contracts of sale are made subject to a certificate of occupancy and, as the settlement date looms, the anxiety rises - the government is accused of jeopardising the sale.
Increasingly, the government is being held liable for a certificate of occupancy, with owners seeking compensation, if and when structural problems have been found with the building subsequent to the issue of the certificate of occupancy. In recognition of the inherent weaknesses of the current policy, a position was taken in 2001 to no longer issue certificates of occupancy for building works which did not require a building permit at the time of construction. This covered works undertaken by the Commonwealth government, and any building works undertaken before the subject land was declared to be in a building area. In these cases, the buildings were legal at the time of construction and, because of existing use rights, the building works remain so.
Given the concerns with the practice of issuing certificates for the many thousands of pre-1993 works that were not finalised with the issue of a certificate of occupancy, further legal advice was sought. The advice was that, in respect of building works completed under the Building Ordinance 1955, there is no power to issue certificates of occupancy. Further, the advice stated that the Director of Building Control must satisfy himself that the building works completed under the Building Act 1983 comply in all respects with the requirements of today’s standards and not those at the time of construction.
In light of this advice, a further change of policy was proposed in late 2003. Given the number of perceived practical problems in implementing the policy, and public concerns, I instructed the department to undertake further consultation with industry to further consider the proposed policy and other options. Following a number of meetings with key industry representatives, agreement was reached in September 2004 for legislated change. Hence, this bill is now before the House.
The main provision in the bill is to remove the legal requirement for old building work to have a certificate of occupancy. This recognises the reality with the passage of time of up to 49 years. It is very difficult to determine the actual structural construction due to non-existent or incomplete records, or inaccessible building components.
There are two matters that should be addressed in the purchase of a building. First is its legal status. The bill will allow a building certifier to advise a client that a pre-1993 building is legal if a building permit was required at the time of construction, a permit was issued, and an inspection reveals that the building is substantially in accordance with the permit. The second matter is the current state of the repair of the building. This is a consumer consideration that is best addressed by a building condition report from a building practitioner. This is not a matter for regulation, but a matter of consumer awareness and choice.
An education program is proposed for the real estate industry and the public on the importance of the two matters referred to above; namely, the legal status of a building and its current state of repair.
In conclusion, this bill will resolve many of the operational concerns with the Building Act as it stands at present. The introduction of private certification in 1993 was an enormous reform of the building control regime. The Northern Territory was the first jurisdiction to go down this road, to the extent of placing complete responsibility of issuing permits with the private sector. This left the public sector with the role of regulating the standards required for building works, registering building practitioners, auditing their performance, and keeping the official records of buildings.
This bill clarifies the powers of the Building Practitioners Board in ensuring the performance of the private sector practitioners, validates the buildings areas intended in 1993, and addresses the problems associated with works approved before 1993.
However, there are still more amendments to come. I foreshadow further housekeeping amendments to the Building Act in 2005. There were a number of general operational matters raised in the discussion paper on the review of the Building Act that was the subject of consultation last year. These matters have not been included in the two bills to date, as they have a lower priority. However, it is my intention to address them in a further bill next year. I will take the opportunity, at that time, to change the penalty system in the act from dollars to penalty units, and review the level, as there is evidence that the current penalty provisions are far too low.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
PLANNING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 275)
(Serial 275)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that this bill be now read a second time.
The bill amends the Planning Act to address deficiencies in the current planning processes. Some of these deficiencies were identified by the member for Fannie Bay, as the shadow minister for planning, during the debate on the Planning Bill 1999. In October 2001, my predecessor, the member for Casuarina, announced that the review of the Planning Act would be undertaken in line with the government’s election commitment.
A discussion paper on the review of the Planning Act was released on 30 March 2003, and public submissions were invited. Submissions were to be received by 31 May 2003. Concurrently, a revised draft for the consolidated Northern Territory Planning Scheme - this time with zoning maps in the new format - was also released for public comment. During the public comment period, departmental officers conducted a series of consultative sessions with local government and community and industry groups regarding the draft Planning Scheme and the Planning Act review. Subsequently, at the request of residents’ action groups, workshops were facilitated by a consultant on the review of the act and the scheme. These were held in Darwin on 6 and 17 September 2003, with action groups and departmental staff participating. In addition, I held a further workshop with the groups on 17 July 2004.
Twenty-seven submissions on the review of the Planning Act were received from individuals, community groups, businesses and professional organisations, local government and Northern Territory government agencies. The submissions, generally, addressed issues that have been canvassed in the discussion paper. Some matters outside the scope of the discussion paper were also raised. The public response to the discussion paper has been positive overall, although it is inevitable that, as with a matter of such high public interest such as planning, there will be differing views on specific issues.
The government is committed to the making of the new Planning Scheme to provide the community, industry and government with user-friendly integrated and consistent planning framework, within which projects can be proposed and determined with confidence. After 30 years of an evolving, fragmented planning regime, we owe this significant overhaul to the next generation to enable it to better manage the coming era of development in the Territory.
Much work has been done on the proposed scheme over many years, and it is now at the statutory exhibition stage. Legal advice is that the proposed Northern Territory Planning Scheme would be better facilitated if amendments to the relevant provisions of the act were made first. For that reason, the statutory exhibition of the new planning scheme will be held over until the act is amended.
I now wish to outline the more significant matters that are contained in this bill. In order to give a more complete picture of the government’s intentions, I will refer to details that will be contained in the consequential regulations where appropriate. In order to set the scene, the bill proposes a new proposed section 2A of the Planning Act, on the objects of the act and I quote:
- The objects of this act are to plan for, and provide a framework of controls for, the orderly use and
development of land. The objects are to be achieved by:
- strategic planning of land use and development and for the sustainable
use of resources;
effective controls and guidelines for the appropriate use of land, having regard
to its capabilities and limitations;
control of development to provide protection of the natural environment, including by
sustainable use of water and land resources;
minimising adverse impacts of development on existing amenity and, wherever possible,
ensuring that amenity is enhanced as a result of development;
ensuring, as far as possible, that planning reflects the wishes and needs of the community
through appropriate public consultation and input in both the formulation and implementation
of planning schemes; and
fair and open decision-making and appeals processes.
‘Amenity’ is a word in common usage within the discipline of land use planning and development. Whilst to date its meaning has been the common meaning found in dictionaries and court decisions, some submissions support defining it within the act. A definition of an amenity is included in the bill. In relation to a locality or building, amenity means any quality, condition or factor that makes or contributes to making the locality or building harmonious, pleasant or enjoyable.
The minister’s current power to direct the Development Consent Authority in relation to the determination of a particular development is to be removed. The power to give a general direction or specific direction other than as to the determination of an application will remain. For example, the minister will be able to direct on process such as readvertising an application or calling a special meeting to consider a particular matter.
In place of the power to direct the Development Consent Authority on the determination of a particular application, the minister will be empowered to ‘call out’ an application before the authority and determine it as a consent authority. A determination by the minister under ‘call out’ provisions will not be subject to appeal. This is seen to be more transparent in that the Development Consent Authority, the applicant, and those who make submissions will be advised that the minister will be the consent authority with minister’s signature on the development permit as a permanent record.
The bill removes the current statutory distinction between land use objectives, development provisions and incorporated documents as separate elements of the Planning Scheme. This amendment, in particular, will facilitate the making of a new Planning Scheme. Individual clauses of the Planning Scheme will be worded to make clear whether they are statements of planning policy, development controls or design criteria. They will also make it clear whether they are binding, matters that can be waived, or matters to which the consent authority must have regard.
The Planning Scheme will speak for itself. At present, the Planning Act and any of the many documents in the Planning Scheme must be read together to ensure the correct interpretation. The Planning Scheme will include general and local statements of land use, planning policy, provisions for the use or development of land, or assessment criteria to assist the consent authority in assessing development applications. The scheme will be able to ‘call up’ external documents - for example, guidelines for land clearing, excavation and fill - and refer to other documents as background material. I emphasise that it will be able to address issues at the Territory, regional and local levels.
The bill amends the act to permit the making of a separate Planning Scheme for a part of the Territory where unique circumstances would make it inappropriate for the broader scheme to apply. The Northern Territory Planning Scheme will be default scheme. The bill introduces a simplified mechanism for dealing with minor additions or alternations to a building or development with existing non-conforming use rights. A more expedient alternative to the only current means of using an exceptional development permit is necessary to avoid the anomalous situation that presently exists and was not foreseen in the development of the current act.
Matters to be taken into account by the Development Consent Authority when assessing a development application described in section 51 are to be expanded to include crime prevention, design principles, water safety, and access for people with disabilities.
The bill provides for electronic lodgement of development applications. Electronic technology will, obviously, expand more and more into the world of business and government. I note that the National Development Assessment Forum, established by the Commonwealth, state and territory planning ministers, of which the Northern Territory is a member, is developing protocols to facilitate just such initiatives. The proposed amendment to the act anticipates these emerging uses of technology.
The bill provides that, where a land use subject to consent is discontinued for more than 12 months, the consent will automatically lapse. However, the Development Consent Authority will be empowered to extend the period beyond 12 months in a particular case if a request is justified. This provision mirrors the existing provision for non-conforming uses and is designed to allow the consent authority to review the appropriateness and conditions of a previous use, given any change in circumstances.
The bill allows a local authority to initiate the process of nominating a person to fill a vacancy on the Development Consent Authority rather than having to wait for a request by the minister to do so. It also removes the need for an alternate to be reappointed where a principle member ceases to hold office in mid-term. The alternate will be an alternate for a position rather than for a particular person. These provisions are designed to simplify administration.
Determinations by the minister, acting as consent authority for administrative convenience for the remote areas of the Territory, will now be subject to the same appeal rights as for the determinations by the Development Consent Authority. This is a matter of equity for people in remote areas who should not be discriminated against on the grounds of who is the consent authority. However, there will be a separate provision under which the minister could make a determination in a particular case that will not be appealable. This provision is the equivalent of the ‘call out’ provisions described earlier.
The bill specifies that prosecution for a breach of the act or the Planning Scheme may be initiated within two years from the time the breach first came to notice. At present, it is only six months, and such a tight time frame has proven to be difficult to administer, particularly in relation to offences such as land clearing and other matters that can be time-consuming when bringing an action. The present time frames provide little opportunity for a negotiated outcome as an alternative to prosecution. It should be a consideration of government that a proper planning outcome is achieved rather than just taking punitive action.
The clearing of native vegetation, whether contrary to the Northern Territory Planning Scheme or the conditions of a development permit, is to be regarded as a more serious offence. Unlike many other land use offences, once the clearing has taken place it is difficult to make good, and revegetation will take years to achieve the original amenity. Clearing offences will be specific offences and will not be prosecuted under the general offence provisions of section 75. The act will provide that the owner of the land, the occupier of the land, and the person apparently in charge of the clearing activity, can each be held accountable.
Statutory provision is proposed for the minister to appoint advisory committees and set their terms of reference. At present, there is power for the Development Consent Authority to establish an advisory committee, but not for a committee to advise the minister. Obviously, the minister can administratively seek advice from any source, but there is merit in having a committee established by statute with its purpose, membership and terms of reference being clearly stated under the act. The first committee to be established under this power will be the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. The committee exists at present as an administrative entity but, after the amendments have been made, I will re-establish it under the appropriate section of the Planning Act.
The act is to be amended to specify that the Lands and Mining Tribunal may override the decision of the consent authority on appeal only where the tribunal is satisfied that the consent authority’s decision would produce a planning outcome that would be manifestly wrong. The emphasis must be on the planning merit of a case and not legal technicalities. The amendment to the act will also allow the tribunal to receive independent land use planning advice to ensure good planning outcomes.
A key commitment by government was to introduce limited rights of third party appeal. These are appeals by parties other than the applicant, such as neighbours. The bill provides for such rights. During the consultation period, there was support for the introduction of limited rights of third party appeal. However, some community groups are seeking very few limitations on these rights and will be disappointed by the limitations proposed by government. Others said that, if third party appeals are to be introduced, they should be severely restricted. Concern has been expressed by industry regarding uncertainty, delays and additional costs that can be associated with third party appeals. The government is mindful of the need to strike a balance between the legitimate expectation of developers and landowners on one hand and, on the other hand, the expectations of people for preserving and enhancing their living environment.
Having regard to the need for this balancing of interests, it was evidenced that unrestricted rights of appeal would be just as inequitable as a complete absence of such a right. Having regard to the decade’s long extensive experience of other jurisdictions, the government has decided that the right of third party appeals should be focussed on the residential zones. People decide to live in a particular location in a residential zone and make investments accordingly. These people will now have a right to appeal a decision to allow development that would unduly impact on their residential amenity of choice.
The proposed restrictions on third party appeals are as follows. There will be no third party right of appeal in circumstances where the applicant cannot appeal. Generally, this is where a minister has called out a matter from the Development Consent Authority and determined it as consent authority and for exceptional development permits. Third party appeals may not be for reasons of commercial competition. Only a person who has made a written submission to the consent authority may appeal. This is to encourage participation in the process earlier rather than later. Only a person, as defined in the Interpretation Act - namely a real person, a body corporate or a body politic - may appeal. In other words, the appellants must be legal entities and be able to carry the legal consequences of their actions. Costs may be awarded against a person whose appeal is determined by the Lands and Mining Tribunal to be frivolous or vexatious, or for reasons of commercial competition.
The regulations will prescribe classes of development, in respect of which there will be no right of third party appeal. Generally, appeals will not be allowed for subdivisions or consolidations. They will not be allowed for development in a non-residential zone unless it is on land that interfaces with residential zoned land. Thus, development in the Darwin CBD and Winnellie will not be subject to third party appeals, but development in a local shopping centre could be. Third party appeals will be allowed for residential developments over two storeys in height, such as the controversial unit development in Ostermann Street. Non-residential uses in a residential zone, such as child-care facilities and home occupations where the use does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Planning Scheme, will be appealable.
I now wish to make some comments on strategic planning. At least one public submission observed that the Planning Act does not refer in any material way to the activity or process of strategic planning. While this is true, it is also true that there is no need for it to do so as the strategic planning function, as an activity of government, is a foundation of the Planning Scheme. Outcomes of strategic planning will form the basis of amendments to the Planning Scheme. The act ensures that amendments are open to public scrutiny and comment. In order to reinforce the importance and nature of strategic planning, clause 2A of the bill does refer to the activity of strategic planning as one of the means by which the objects of the Planning Act can be achieved.
There were other matters that came out of the review that I intend to implement, but which do not require amendment to the act. For example, notification of some applications in the newspaper will include a map where this is appropriate. The assessment reports from the action officers to the Development Consent Authority will be available to the public at the hearing. A higher standard of development application will be enforced.
I wish to thank all those who participated in review of the Planning Act since April last year. In particular, I thank local government, community groups, industry, and individuals who have taken the time to read the material, attend public meetings and workshops, and make submissions. I must acknowledge the work of officers in my department in bringing this review to fruition.
Whilst the review has taken longer than originally anticipated, it spanned a change of ministers, and I have given it the time necessary to ensure that I am well aware of the concerns being expressed by all parties. Many of these concerns are conflicting and competing, which reflects the very nature of land use planning and development. It is the role of government to find the balance, and I believe we have in the proposed changes I have outlined. The Planning Act is central in ensuring the Territory is managed in a sustainable manner and that development is orderly and appropriate for the social and economic wellbeing of all, including future generations.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take Two Bills Together
Take Two Bills Together
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Bill 2004 (Serial 270) and the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2004 (Serial 271):
- (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively,
the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third reading of the bills together; and
Motion agreed to.
VOLATILE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION BILL
(Serial 270)
MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 271)
(Serial 270)
MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 271)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
I am delighted to present these bills to parliament. Their purpose is to introduce into the Northern Territory a comprehensive and systematic approach to the prevention and treatment of volatile substance abuse. The clear intent of these bills is that intervention is to take place where volatile substance abuse in occurring.
In the Northern Territory, substance abuse is, undoubtedly, one of the biggest barriers to achieving outcomes in health, education and community safety. The unacceptable levels of harm being suffered, particularly by young people who abuse volatile solvents, is well known. The Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community recently released its report Petrol Sniffing in Remote Territory Communities. The report detailed the unacceptably high levels of harm associated with the abuse of volatile substances - harm to the individual who abuses these substances, their families, and to their communities. The report detailed that some 30 remote communities were particularly affected and that there were an estimated 350 chronic sniffers. It particularly highlighted the circumstances of 15 young people from Central Australia who suffered permanent brain damage. The financial costs of looking after people in those circumstances – some $150 000 per year – is an additional and potentially avoidable burden on the community.
The committee received almost 20 submissions about volatile substances. It visited a number of communities and met with agencies and people who are active in the prevention and treatment of volatile substance abuse. The committee’s findings and recommendations were informed by this consultative process. These bills have been a long time in the making. On 22 March 2003, acting in my then capacity as chair of the select committee, I submitted a foreword to the committees interim report. In that foreword I said:
- When it comes to petrol sniffing, it is clear that intervention is going to require some legislative reform ...
From there, we made tackling substance abuse one of the six key priorities in Building Healthier Communities, our framework to providing the best in health and community services. In Building Healthier Communities, a key action item was to explore options of legislative reform to combat petrol sniffing.
Building Healthier Communities was launched at the beginning of this year. In May this year, I presented a report to parliament that outlined the policy position of the government, and the intention of passing legislation along the lines of these bills I am introducing today.
In both my time as the chair of the substance abuse committee and now as the relevant responsible minister, I have visited many communities and met with many organisation to discuss the scourge of petrol sniffing. The crisis and dysfunctions caused by petrol sniffing is so confronting and profound that, regardless of the scale of the problem at any particular community, it is almost always the No 1 priority issue.
Petrol sniffing undermines and offends communal pride like few other negative behaviours. Communities regard volatile substance abuse as something which they themselves must try to address. Community elders, elected representatives, and community members generally have to remain actively involved in setting the standards which will apply in the place where they live. Such standards will need to involve responses to outbreak of abuse, and plans for working collectively to support those people affected by volatile substance abuse problems - the sniffers, their families and their communities. The desire by communities to try to tackle the volatile substance abuse at a local level does not mean that the communities either wish, or have the resources, to effectively meet that challenge in isolation without support. The greater successes will be achieved by communities collaboratively with non-government and government service agencies.
These bills alone will not adequately address the problem. Legislation needs to be complemented by a range of other complementary programs and services. The government is developing such programs and services, and we have announced an additional $10m over the next five years to fund them.
There are other initiatives outside the scope of these bills that can go a long way towards to reducing volatile substance abuse. One of these is increasing the availability of fuel that does not have the same intoxicating effects as standard fuel. Such fuel is available, and we will be working to increase its availability while limiting the availability of intoxicating fuels in areas where volatile substance abuse occurs.
Formal mechanisms already exist where individuals who contemporaneously abuse volatile substances and committee offences are dealt with in the criminal justice system. Outside the criminal justice system, only informal processes exist to intervene where a person is at risk of harm. This legislation remedies that omission. This legislation, plus the funding package already announced, will ensure that communities, police and other agencies are empowered to intervene in various ways when people are at risk of harm through their abuse of volatile substances.
I turn now to the details of the bills. As I have stated, their clear intent is that intervention takes place when volatile substance abuse is occurring. While petrol sniffing is the primary form of volatile substance abuse, these bills also deal with other inhalants such as paint and glue. Intervention sanctioned under the bills could be immediate. A framework is established that will enable a range of actions to be taken in relation to volatile substance abuse.
Firstly, the bills provide for the seizure and disposal by police of volatile substances that are being abused. It allows the relocation to a place of safety, or to the care of responsible adults, of people abusing volatile substances who may pose a risk to the health and safety of themselves or others. Again, under the scheme set up under these bills, the apprehension of sniffers may be undertaken either by members of the Northern Territory Police or by other appropriately authorised persons such as members of the Night Patrol. These bills put in place detailed safeguards in relation to the apprehension process to ensure that the power is used appropriately and in the best interest of the person being apprehended. They provide for examination by a medical practitioner in circumstances of extended apprehension. They provide for the release of a person in protective custody into the care of a responsible adult. Alternatively, they provide for such release when the person no longer poses a risk.
These bills build on the lessons learned about prevention and treatment of volatile substance abuse, both from a Northern Territory standpoint and by reference to interstate and overseas experience. In circumstances where abuse of volatile substances is resulting in neurological, physical or mental harm, the bills allow for the making of orders requiring a long-term process of compelled attendance at assessment sessions, or participation in treatment or rehabilitation programs.
The bills also enable communities to develop enforceable management plans regulating the possession, supply and the use of volatile substances in their local area. Needs, circumstances and resources of communities differ. It is, therefore, imperative to implement a system that can accommodate such differences. To round off the comprehensive scheme provided by the bills, the offence of unlawful supply of volatile substances has been transferred from the Misuse of Drugs Act. It allows for the prosecution of persons for the unlawful supply of volatile substances, and the protection of persons who give information to the police about an offence.
The select committee made 17 recommendations for a whole-of-government approach to petrol sniffing. The recommendations included: meeting the needs of individuals in communities; immediate and long-term harm reduction intervention and treatment strategies; education and skills for all those involved in volatile solvent abuse; prevention and treatment programs in communities; ancillary community programs; data collection and reporting; drug education for remote communities; and cooperative approaches with industry. The bills are consistent with these recommendations.
The bills do not criminalise volatile substance abuse. That was the definite preference of the communities we consulted; it is also my definite preference and that of this government. Criminalising petrol sniffing would be a retrograde step. It would not address the scourge of petrol sniffing. Gaol is not the answer. We are effectively banning petrol sniffing. We are giving police, courts and the communities the power they need to intervene when sniffing occurs. As I said at the beginning of this speech, the primary intention of the bills is to allow for intervention when substance abuse is occurring.
The fact that the bills do not involve criminalisation does not translate in any way into an excuse for crime while under the influence of a volatile substance. Indeed, the bills become almost redundant when a crime has occurred because the police and the court system will proceed under the raft of other legislation and powers that currently exist, which come into play when violence, theft or property damage occurs.
This is quite complex legislation. While there is legislation in other states that does seek to address this issue, no other jurisdiction has so far embarked on the course we are now travelling. This legislation would, indeed, be simple if all it did was send people to prison for sniffing petrol – simple, but stupid. It is complex legislation and it is unique. We have had to walk the fine line between providing for intervention and protecting people’s rights.
A lot of work has gone into the drafting of these bills, and my thanks go to those involved from my department, the Department of Justice and Parliamentary Counsel who have worked so hard on working through the issues involved. It has not been easy and I acknowledge the long hours put in.
As I said, this is unique legislation. We have consulted widely and now we are introducing it. The bills will be debated early next year. I encourage those, including members opposite, who may have ideas on how it could be improved, to propose them. However, I say from the outset that we will not be considering criminalisation nor prison sentences. However, if you have ideas that fall within our policy framework, then let us know and we will seek legal advice and consider them.
While a strong and clear legislative framework is vital, the effectiveness of the provisions detailed in the draft bills are dependent on increasing the capacity of existing services through training and additional staff, and on developing new services that are accessible to those communities most affected by volatile substance abuse. Many of the proposed services will be in remote locations, and intensive support will need to be provided to ensure appropriate service standards and duty of care are met and maintained. Government agencies may also be required to facilitate integration of services and referral of clients.
The practical implementation and the mechanics of the proposed legislation, such as guidelines for authorised persons and police procedures, will need to be considered. Assessment tools, referral arrangements and protocols between treatment and rehabilitation services, safe places, health services, and the justice system will be developed and appropriately resourced. Monitoring and review processes will also need to be considered to ensure that agreed and high standards of services are provided at all times to all clients by all agencies.
This legislation provides a whole-of-community response to volatile substance abuse. It meets the identified needs of the communities, and harnesses and strengthens the resources of communities and agencies to respond to the problems associated with abuse of volatile substances.
Lastly, I would like to thank my Cabinet and caucus colleagues who have given me the support required, not only to bring forward these bills, but to allocate the additional $10m. Those who know me know how passionate I am about this issue. Addressing the scourge of substance abuse is one of the reasons I entered politics, and I thank my colleagues for supporting me bringing forward this bill today.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
PLACE NAMES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 251)
(Serial 251)
Continued from 6 October 2004.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of minor comments. I welcome the bill introduced by the government. It certainly broadens the application for the use of different names in areas throughout the Northern Territory. It enables areas, especially those not covered by local government, to also be included in being consulted about various names.
The only thing that I have always found difficult with place names were the changes that were brought in a few years back where what was once called Knuckey’s Lagoon had to become Knuckey Lagoon. Many people resent that, simply because I believe we were coming in - let me get the right word - we were falling in line - yes, I knew it had something to do with the Army; it must be the barracks affecting me - with international standards.
When you look at some of the old maps of Darwin, Knuckey’s Lagoon was spelt apostrophe s.
Mr Dunham: Knight’s Cliff.
Mr WOOD: That is right. For the life of me, I cannot see what was ever wrong with that. All right, it might not have fitted in with the world’s best practice, but it made a lot of sense. Of course, what it did when we tried to fall in line with the rest of the world was that places like Bees Creek and Freds Pass, if you had taken the ‘s’ out of those, you would have had Bee Creek - people might have thought that was something a bit rude - and Fred Pass did not quite have the same ring about it. We created some anomalies as well. I would be interested to know, minister, why we could not go back to calling Knuckey Lagoon Knuckey’s Lagoon, because it was named after Knuckey, and it makes good English to say Knuckey’s Lagoon.
It is just one of those things we have with changes to the place names bill. I thought it would be an opportunity to raise that because I know it does get up people’s noses a little that places that they used to call quite commonly with an ‘s’ have lost that ‘s’. That, to some extent for them, lost some of their local identification.
Otherwise, I do not have any other concerns about it; it is a good amendment. It allows other structures in other places and other groups - Aboriginal people not involved in local government - to be included in the naming of places. I believe it is a definite improvement on what we have at the present time.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Yes, this is one of my little pet passions too, Madam Speaker. As someone from here, I believe place names should reflect the history and the colloquialism of the place. If a place is dead fish hole where you go fishing, it should be called dead fish hole. It might not be a sweet sounding, palatable name, but if that is where people used to go, that is what it should be called.
It is a good thing to have Aboriginal place names. I have been to Wulungurru, Nganmarriyanga and Woodykupuldiya and places like that. However, when you start using some of those names outside of an Aboriginal context in urban settings, people find them very difficult to say. Indeed, all of the suburbs of Darwin are all Aboriginal words that are mispronounced. Most of them, if you look for instance at the oft-used word now of Maluka Drive - of which Katherine and Palmerston each have one – it is actually Malaga Drive. Malaga is a very common word. There is no offence or anything in it but, because a lady came up here for 18 months and phonetically wrote it that way in a book, everybody calls it Maluka. Of course, nobody wants to live in Malak Malak, so they live in Malak.
There is a difficulty with having Aboriginal names that are very difficult for common parlance. I am not saying not to have them; I believe it is great thing. However, it is a difficulty in places like Hermannsburg now - which is not called Hermannsburg but is commonly called Ntaria. All of these places have proper constituted Aboriginal names and they are still called by other colloquial ones. There is a problem when you change some of those names quickly. Duck Creek became Djembre which became Jilkminggan, and I think it is something else again now. Some of these names can change pretty quickly, and it can cause confusion.
I do not have a problem with the Place Names Committee going further than just public places; that is probably a good idea. I cannot understand what the minister means by - and I will read it out:
- Finally, the amendments also include the updated gender provisions in line with Northern Territory
government policy.
I do not know what that means. If it means you cannot have a place called Sheila’s Lookout because it might be an offensive or derogatory name for women, I do not know. However, I cannot understand what that means. Does it mean that we are going to have names that are non-gender specific? If that is the case, we should not have Emily’s Gap and all those sort of places. For Wildman River to be called Wildperson River would be stupid. If that is what is meant - and I do not know, so I am just surmising about that sentence. I have now read the second reading speech a couple of times and I still do not understand what the gender provisions and the government policy have to do with naming places. There should be distinctly feminine names and distinctly masculine names, and there should be names that conjure up feminine and masculine images. I do not have a problem with that.
Regarding the delegation of names, we have had some pretty crazy names. I know there was a big fight about Dundee Beach because that is not its proper name. People call it Dundee Beach, the developers call it Dundee Beach; it is a good name. Mr Dundee is a fictitious character from a movie who never, ever lived there - but what the heck! – it is Dundee Beach. We can be a bit too pure about this and, if we are going to give it to a group that says: ‘No, we have decided to call it this name’ - that might be a little quiz for the minister if he can tell me what the real name of the Dundee Beach is because …
Mr Wood: Namarada.
Mr DUNHAM: What is it?
Mr Maley: Namarada.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, there you are, you have the answer – 10 out of 10!
I do not think the amendments are really problematic. We have talked about it in the CLP and we support the bill. I believe it is really important that we look to those issues of confusion, particularly confusion that can come from a place name changing from an Anglicised name to an Aboriginal name - sometimes a couple of times. We should look at pronunciations being a big issue, particularly if we want to pay homage to that particular person, tribe or entity. It is important that people actually know how to say it because, to have something named after a relation - Secrett Road, for instance. A lot of people call it secret road. It is Secrett Road because it is named after the Secretts. It is really important, if you had a road named after one of your ancestors, that people actually pronounce it properly.
Therefore, confusion, proper pronunciations, and not being too squeamish about colloquial names that catch on and keep getting called that - that is not a problem. I also agree with the member for Nelson when he said there was a national or international way of doing it. One of the things they try to do is drop off first names, so you can only name it the surname. Walter Young Street in Katherine is still Walter Young Street, and I do not have a problem with using both names. Tiger Brennan Drive is a great name for a road - Tiger Brennan Drive; Dick Ward Road.
If there is a move to get to something that drops all the possessives off it, only calls it by the surname, I am against it, because it is good to live in a place where Humpty Doo is not a name that you find funny. I am glad we have a Humpty Doo and a Tiger Brennan Drive. If there is any move to change that to be more civil and genteel and whatever, I am agin it. That, of course, is a matter for the people who bestow these names, and I suppose that is who I am speaking to, rather than the act. The CLP supports this bill.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have great pleasure in supporting this bill. When I was flying into Alice Springs a couple of weeks ago, I was struck once again by the extraordinary beauty of the Arrernte country of the Alice Springs region. In saying this, I am only partly talking about the ever-changing colours of the MacDonnell Ranges and their tangled maze of spinifex-dotted hills and valleys, and the sands of the Todd River that runs past the ghost gums that lean over its course. That is only part of it.
I was also struck by the very real sense you get that the buildings and streets represent only the surface of the township of Alice Springs; that the footpaths and bitumen, houses and shops form but a thin layer of dust over the land. It is the sense that the beauty of the country runs deep and reflects age-old traditions, and that the growth of a town like Alice reflects qualities far more ancient and life-affirming than brick and mortar.
As Arrernte elder, Wenten Rubuntja, described it in his biography launched last year, Alice Springs is a town that ‘grew up dancing’. The point he makes in that book, published by the local Institute for Aboriginal Development, is that it is the language of the traditional owners of Alice Springs, Arrernte, that is intrinsic to the living culture and heritage of the town, and the Arrernte country that forms and surrounds it. It is language that defines place and the interrelationship between places. Beneath and beyond the streetscape of Alice Springs lies an interconnected landscape of language. So it goes as you move north to Darwin, through our Anmatyerr and Kaytej country, and thence through the traditional lands of the Warrumungu, Warlmanpa, Wakaya, Jingili and Mudbura peoples, and on again through the traditional lands of the Yangman Mangarrayi, Dagoman and Jawoyn peoples.
The point of what I am saying is that each of these language groups, and many others besides, is an integral part of a mosaic that makes up what we now call the Northern Territory. Increasingly in the Northern Territory, indigenous languages have come to be accepted as a legitimate part of our broader society, and part of this is the acceptance of the importance of the linguistic landscape of and the issue of Aboriginal place names in the Northern Territory. It is an area that has provoked some controversy in the Territory in the past.
A number of you might remember the silly outrage that was sparked in 1985 when Anangu traditional owners decided to name a major national park south-west of Alice Springs Uluru-Kata Tjuta. It was predicted at the time - urged on by certain politicians and media commentators - that it would ruin the reputation of a national tourism icon if the name of an obscure South Australian colonial official was dropped in favour of Pitjantjatjara place names. Similarly, though perhaps less stridently, when the Jawoyn people gave as a dual name Nitmiluk to Katherine Gorge National Park, the doomsayers were out with similar arguments. History and, indeed, commercial reality has proved how wrong these critics were. Both Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Nitmiluk are now firmly entrenched in the national and international imagination as iconic national parks.
It also proved something else: that the marketplace does not have a problem with the use of Aboriginal place names. Indeed, arguably, because the knowledge of traditional place names of the Northern Territory is so extensive, we may actually enjoy a competitive advantage in the naming of our significant places across the Territory. It is an advantage that can help define the uniqueness of the Territory in the international marketplace.
Imagine how this could transform the way all of us look at the Territory. Without pre-empting what people might decide to do, how much more interesting a place like Katherine’s Low Level Crossing would be if it was also known as Gawutjwutjmar, a place of boiling and bubbling water. Or if Knotts Crossing also carried the Jawoyn name Mandarpa commemorating a place Gupu the kangaroo paused for a drink on its ancestral journey. This is being increasingly recognised.
Tourist operators in Tennant Creek - long a battle ground over the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act - now issue and promote local maps which show both the English and Warrumungu names for features of the land in and around the town. David Brooks’ The Arrernte Landscape: A Guide to the Dreaming Tracks and Sights of Alice Springs performs a similar function. Many street names in the Alice bear Arrernte words.
When a similar idea to signpost signs around the township area with Jawoyn place names was suggested in Katherine in the early 1908s, opposition from the then Katherine Town Council was vociferous. I wonder if the same would happen now. Surely, no one could pretend there is much evocative, let alone poetic, about First, Second and Third Streets in Katherine. Might we not, perhaps, take up Robert Lee’s suggestion of a few years ago and rename them Wardaman, Dagoman and Jawoyn Streets, thus recognising the three language groups with a traditional focus on the Katherine region.
These amendments to the Place Names Act will facilitate the naming of places in the Territory. They will allow, at the request of Aboriginal groups and in consultation with them, for a much easier process of allotting traditional names to communities and physical features of their land. It will encourage, where appropriate, the dual naming of place where differing heritage coincides. This does not mean the compulsory changing of names or that more recent histories would be ignored in naming places - far from it. This is not about rewriting history, but about expanding on our myriad multicultural heritage. However, it might mean something quite wonderful and inclusive for all Territorians and the people who visit.
One can image a project, for example, that included land councils, community councils, language and literacy production centres, the Aboriginal Areas Protections Authority, tourist groups and members of the broader community to produce an atlas of the Territory that could include some of the thousands of Aboriginal place names that exist alongside those from more recent historical traditions. It would literally put the status, legitimacy and diversity of Aboriginal languages on the map. In more than one sense of the word, it would be a landmark in the history of Territory publishing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, our sense of place as Territorians is intimately linked with language. Whether you are Greek, Chinese, Italian, Anglo, Aboriginal or any of the other heritage groups represented in the Territory, this holds true.
The Place Names Committee has served the Territory well over the years and will continue to do so. These amendments recognise the committee’s past practice of extensive consultation and will streamline and enhance their work in the future. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome contributions from all members. I want to place on record my interaction with the Place Names Committee, which I did not have a chance to do in my second reading speech.
When I lived in Millner, we lived in Kelsey Place and that came off Kelsey Crescent. I can remember many times the pizzas going missing, a pizza bloke coming to the door looking for the address in the other place, taxi cabs zooming up and down when you were wanting to go to the airport, or even people trying to chase up cheques and mail and whatever from one place to the other. I decided to do something about it, and took up a petition and engaged the Place Names Committee, and was successful in getting the name changed. I did ask for it to be changed to Burns Place, but that was unsuccessful. No, not really. It was changed to Belle Place.
Mr Wood: You have to be dead!
Mr Stirling: We already have a Burns Court.
Dr BURNS: Burnsy’s Place! But there you go, it was changed from Kelsey Place to Belle Place. I found out the history. Kelsey, I believe, was a surveyor and Belle was his daughter, so there you go. We got the pizzas and the mail we wanted, and the cabs came to the right place at the right time. Place names are important, from a very functional level, including police, fire and emergency and all the rest of it, so it is an important issue.
The member for Nelson talked about having the capacity to have colloquial names. I will certainly write to the Place Names Committee and put to them that, as part of parliamentary debate, that this was a suggestion, and that a number of members were not particularly worried about what were international conventions. We were more interested in a bit of traditional and colloquialism in the Territory. I will certainly undertake to do that, to let them know the feelings within the House here.
The member for Drysdale asked the question about the second reading speech statement that finally, the amendments also include the updated gender provisions. That has nothing to do with place names. It actually relates to the act itself and, ‘he and she’, or ‘he’ in the act, are the gender provisions which apply to our legislation these days. We are not turning one name from a male name into a female name or vice versa.
I took on board what was said about Dundee and Namarada. I call it Dundee in my press releases when I talk about power and the road to Dundee, so I am certainly acknowledging that name of Dundee in press releases.
I would like to compliment the member for Arnhem. I thought he gave a very poetic and deeply felt contribution to this debate. He talked about the rhythm of the Aboriginal names that exist, and those co-existing with more recent history. He was not talking about a prescriptive approach, but something that could enrich us all, and I commend that.
I commend the Place Names Committee for the work they have to do. They have been given more responsibility, and I am sure they will discharge that responsibility very well and to the credit of the Territory and to the names of the Territory. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr BURNS (Lands and Planning)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 250)
(Serial 250)
Continued from 13 October 2004.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, the second reading of this bill emphasises the reasons for the amendments, which is to mirror amendment provisions in the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, allowing for a single national legislative authority safety approach.
Given that the offshore petroleum industry employs hundreds of people - from all states, territories and overseas - who work, potentially, in a high risk area, it is commonsense and practical that offshore safety is regulated accordingly and is in line with the Commonwealth regulations. Legislation should be in place to protect offshore workers with all the risks involved in this workplace.
The Northern Territory, in repealing section 150 of the principle act and substituting Part 3, Occupational Health and Safety, should ensure that the same high standards of OH&S rights and protections for all workers who work in the offshore industry nationally. Having a young brother who has, for many years, spent considerable periods of time on various rigs off the coast of Australia and overseas doing a fairly specialised job, I am very conscious and aware of the importance of national offshore petroleum safety. The legislation amendments are technical and comprehensive and appear, in my readings of them, to cover all aspects of occupational health and safety. The highest standards of occupational health and safety should be at the forefront of any offshore activity and, as such, I support the amendments to this bill to have the safety authority commencing operation on 1 January 2005.
I make a suggestion to the minister. He could consider co-locating the office of this National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority in with the Minerals Foundation so that they can work cooperatively. This would negate duplication and it would also give the Northern Territory the highest national safety standards possible. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendments to this bill.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I recall when I was studying at the university in Perth in 1983, one of the subjects we studied was occupational health and safety. They showed us a video of an accident that happened on an offshore platform in the waters of the North Sea in the north of Britain. It was an accident that could have been avoided, but was not, and resulted in tens of people dying when they sought refuge in what they thought was a safety area. The tragedy was actually that helicopters were hovering around the platform but they could not pick up people on the platform because of the flames and the smoke. They resorted to filming what happened. I recall very well at the end, when the safety module where they had the accommodation actually burnt and, while it was burning, collapsed and sank into the North Sea.
I agree with the member for Katherine: it is very important that we safeguard the health and safety of the people - Australians and people from other countries - if they work on offshore petroleum platforms and in the petroleum industry. These amendments ensure that now we are going to have one authority - the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority - that will actually oversee occupational health and safety in the waters from the low water mark all the way to the Commonwealth borders, thus having the same standards applying throughout Australia and anywhere north, south, east - from the Bass Strait all the way to the Timor Sea. That is very important. That is as a result of an agreement signed between the Commonwealth and other states and territories to have uniform legislation.
Instead of having some small authorities - one for Western Australia, one for the Northern Territory, one for Queensland - we have put one authority in place, and that authority will oversee the safety of the people there. I believe that the NOPSA - the acronym of the new authority - has advertised for people and selected people from the existing authorities from the different states, because they want to have the expertise and keep the people who already knew their areas and territories. I believe it is a very good idea. Member for Katherine, I believe the people who work for NOPSA in the Territory will be in the same area. They will be within the department so that will increase synergies.
Once again, I thank the opposition for their support of this legislation. It is legislation that we have to sign in order to have a true national approach in some of these issues. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BILL
(Serial 252)
(Serial 252)
Continued from 7 October 2004.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I advise the House that the opposition supports the Professional Standards Bill. It has come to this House following a lot of industry and private support, and lobbying of government to provide an indemnity cap on professional activities by professionals such as lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects and the like.
It is a way for professionals such as those listed to ensure that their professional lives are not too significantly constrained through the huge indemnity cover that they have to buy. Since the collapse of HIH and all the things that have followed from that, obviously, we are all very concerned about what sort of costs professionals have to pay to provide themselves with professional indemnity. Lucky for them, though, they are not obstetricians who face something in the order of $40 000 per year for professional indemnity. Nobody caps it for them. I will grant that the federal government has provided money to assist medical professionals to offset their huge rise in indemnity costs.
This bill will, in fact, allow the non-medical professionals to develop professional bodies and, from within the professional bodies, develop schemes through which they can produce, recommend or institute caps on professional indemnity. It allows clients, customers, to know up-front how well they are covered financially. For instance, you might have a $100m project and you go to an architect, engineer or lawyer for their professional services and find that they are covered to the amount of your project. Then you at least feel comforted that if anything goes really wrong - if the project goes A over T, as they say - then you are at least financially covered, if nothing else.
The professional body at least will provide assurance in the form of professional development of their membership. In that way, it gives us some comfort that the professionals in those schemes are of a minimum standard, and that can only be better for the profession, if nothing else.
I understand that this bill is only to cover pure economic loss and nothing further than that. From that perspective, the opposition cannot argue about it whatsoever. I have spoken to some of the professionals who have written letters to both the government and the opposition and have given a very strong support. Accordingly, we will support it; there is no reason why we should not.
We look forward to a good, fair scheme where the professionals’ schemes will reflect the cost to the industry, and any savings that they make passing on to the consumer. That is the more important point: that those savings made by the professional, because they have to pay less in professional indemnity, will be passed on. If they do, then I believe that the community in the Northern Territory have nothing to complain about. However, if the savings are not passed on and if the professional fees continue to remain at a high level, it is just money for jam for the professionals, and that is not right. I am sure their professional ethics will ensure that they do the right thing by the community, and I look forward to that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the bill.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the spokesperson with responsibility for these matters from the opposition supporting the bill.
It is a fact that each jurisdiction has put in a lot of work in the last few years in relation to insurance questions generally. In this case, it has to do with insurance around professional groups, accountants, lawyers, engineers and the like. The legislation ties, consistently, with that adopted across Australia, closely following the New South Wales legislation. The need for it is quite clear when you look at the increase in premiums accruing to groups such as these professional groups since about 1999, with massive increase in the order of 130% to 140% over the past four years.
The primary reason for legislation of this kind is, of course, to stay with the other jurisdictions and not leave a hole anywhere in Australia that people could walk through in terms of actions like these. However, most importantly, it ensures that insurance products remain available and insurance companies remain in the market for professional groups such as these to obtain insurance cover and, second, that the premium increases we have seen to that order or magnitude over the past few years will be reduced over time as all of these legislative measures begin to take effect.
There is criticism from some groups around saying that QBE and the like are racking up millions of dollars of profits, and asking where the advantage is for the consumer in reduced premiums. The fact is that, if these actions had not been taken by state and territory governments around Australia over the past few years, there would have been an absolute flight of capital from the insurance market and a whole lot of areas, and everyone would have been left totally exposed. Both providers and users of the service, the consumer, would have had no where to go because no one would have been prepared to put the capital into the market.
We have to recognise that the Australian insurance market is about 1% of the global market, and we are not up there in lights as the biggest market around. The Northern Territory, in turn, is about 1% of the Australian market, so we are not up there in lights either. It is incumbent on us as a jurisdiction, having given support at various ministerial councils, that we work with colleagues and stay with the other jurisdictions in legislative processes taking place across Australia in order to reign in premium increases and ensure that insurance companies stay in the market.
It will take time to see all of these effects because you have to have cases come through the courts and being run against the amended legislations, or new legislations in each of the jurisdictions and decisions made in line with the new legislation - realising probably lower benefits than were available before, or at least capped - so that everyone understands the full extent of the liability that they might be up for. That will take time right across Australia for all of those decisions to filter into the system and for premiums to adjust accordingly.
Two objectives have already been achieved to some extent. One, of course, is that availability is still there in the marketplace. That was critical for everyone. The second is the magnitude of the premier increases over the last 12 months or so is nothing like the level of premium increases that were being experienced prior to the raft of legislative reform that has taken place.
We are not finished; there is still more reform to come through. Proportionate liability is another big body of work that is taking place, and we would expect to see that legislation some time in the new year. That would just about round up the current range of reform that is taking place across insurance industry and liability.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his supportive remarks. We cannot expect things to turn around overnight. However, I am confident that we will, in time, see all of this legislation have a healthy effect on premiums and we will see them reduced.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Assessment of Organisational Effectiveness, Human Resource and
Management Systems within the DEET Central Australian Office
Note Paper - Assessment of Organisational Effectiveness, Human Resource and
Management Systems within the DEET Central Australian Office
Continued from 12 October 2004.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a pity, isn’t it? - not that I am calling for a quorum - but look at the state of the House. Everybody is out on Christmas cheer already, and we are still working over here.
This report, called the Assessment of Organisational Effectiveness, Human Resource and Management Systems within the DEET Central Australian Office is an indictment on the minister, who appears to not know what to do. His response to my question today clearly shows that he has no idea what is happening. Nor does he care whether the complaints brought about by the aggrieved teachers are resolved. To bring this debate on today - the last sittings day for the year, followed by a lengthy summer recess - is nothing but a simple exercise of political expediency. Let us get this report buried over the Christmas break. When we come back next year, all this will be forgotten.
Mr Stirling: We brought it in, in the last sittings.
Dr LIM: As it was. The report was commissioned around this time last year and was already in the hands of the minister within a few months, but it took until October before it saw light of day. Your procrastination knows no bounds. Minister, this report will not be forgotten. It will not be left collecting dust in your office. I will see to that. The aggrieved teachers will see to that. The media will see to that. I suggest that the minister gets his head around the issues described in the report and methodically deals with them item by item.
Peppered through the report are words like ‘bully’, ‘harassment’, ‘old boys and girls club’, ‘excessive time taken to resolve issues’, and a myriad of many other derisive comments about the operations of the Central Australian office of DEET. And the procrastination continues. The minister declined to tell us when the complaints brought by the said aggrieved teachers will be resolved. That is what is frustrating. These aggrieved teachers have been waiting in expectation of the handing down of the report from which they can find some course to help them move on in their lives. It is obvious the minister does not care about these people.
Let us go to the report and work through it. If I can summarise the report in a few words, these will be the words that I use, and I quote from the report:
- The review processes reveal some human resource management practices in the Central Australian Region,
DEET Darwin and the OCPE that are, at that best, inconsistent and, at worst, unacceptable in terms of the
Public Sector Management Standards and Code of Conduct.
This is a massive indictment of both departments and how they do business, at least in the business of managing departmental personnel.
Both departments are under the responsibility of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training - the man who is in charge of both - two departments under the same minister and both dysfunctional. What is the common denominator? The minister! That is clearly a sign that this minister is not doing his job, to put it mildly.
What are the consequences of this poor management of grievances? Let us go back to the report where it says:
- … the impact that some of these practices in relation to grievances have had on the self-esteem and
career aspirations of some of the person so aggrieved.
The reviewer further commented that she was limited by the scope of her contract to review the problems; that there could not be any analysis of benchmarks or questions of human resource management performance of the senior managers of the Central Australian region; or whether the issues are specific to Central Australia or Territory-wide. In the body of the report, she suggested that there should be a review of the whole of DEET.
This report should ring loud alarm bells for the minister and the government, and the minister should be proceeding as efficiently as he possibly can to get the matters addressed and resolved. Some of the cases have been quoted in this Chamber before. In one case, a principal who had saved a bush school from collapse and went on to achieve recognition for the school at Territory and national levels for innovation, resilience and education reform, had been forced out by the education system in the Territory and denied due process at every turn. She approached the minister, and the minister repeatedly denied her access.
I quote from the Alice Springs News:
- … only after she had finally accepted her redundancy did Mr Stirling respond, saying that the matter
was now closed.
Terrific, isn’t it? She tried to approach a minister repeatedly and failed. The moment she took her redundancy, the minister was prepared to say: ‘Terrific’.
Case two, is the case of a bush principal who was pulled out at short notice in the middle a flood, causing her to risk driving through creeks where water came over the bonnet of her car. She had to drive the car with her three children in it - three small children - through flood waters. After two years of battling the department, she finally said: ‘I give up, I cannot do anymore’. She left the Territory with her family. I know, because she has been in communication with me.
In the third case, a specialist teacher waited more than 16 months for an apology from the department over administrative errors that caused that teacher to lose her position and to suffer chronic depression and anxiety. Even a psychiatrist said: ‘It is because of the way the department dealt with her that has aggravated her condition’. They are all waiting for justice, for redress - and they are still waiting.
Central Australia has about 15% of the total DEET staff complement, yet it generates about 33% of the total section 59 grievance applications within DEET in just these past three years. The minister, in his tabling speech, listed some nine themes that emerged from the review. He glossed over many others.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my time keeps flicking from half an hour to 20 minutes to 15 minutes. I hope I have time to complete what I have to say.
The minister, in his tabling speech, listed some nine themes which emerged from the review. He glossed over many others. The list in the report totalled 22. Let me read them out to you:
- idiosyncratic ways in which senior managers in Central Australia and Darwin utilised the policy
and procedural frameworks;
lack of consistency within DEET in general in bringing HRM policies and procedures up to date
with best practice;
problems of communication between the Darwin office and the CAO;
problems of communication between the CAO and various communities;
the apparent style within DEET (at least during the period under review) of ‘letting the managers
manage’ without timely and rigorous means of reading the operational climate in the region and
ensuring skill interventions within DEET;
lack of a team approach to problem solving in more sensitive and complicated issues in the CAO;
tendency to have OCPE Alice Springs office staff solve problems that were really the initial domain
of the senior management of the CAO;
relatively low level of constructive involvement of unions and principals in problem solving in the
Central Australian region;
emergence of the increasingly complex and sophisticated relationships between Aboriginal
communities and the schools;
increase in expectations of DEET staff that basic principles of natural justice would be adhered
to in all dealings and that they have the ‘right’ to express a grievance and be ‘heard’;
existence of a small, but hard core of teaching staff that has experienced the grievance processes
at DEET and OCPE levels who retain no respect for the processes and have no closure on the
issues - some of these people are still employed by DEET, some have resigned but continue
to ‘grieve’;
need for clarity of role definitions and accountabilities across the whole organisation, especially in
the light of rolling changes and specific confusion as to roles within the CAO;
raising of expectations of DEET service provisions by parents, students, school councils, and the
general community;
absence of clear policy and procedural directions for dealing with grievances raised by parents and
members for school councils, particularly in relation to school principals.
need for employment, education and training to take a pivotal role in cross-government initiatives
in the Central Australian region;
absence of solid back-up for inexperienced teachers in the Central Australian region taking on
sensitive and complicated matters such as probation, when early difficulties were already known
to senior management in the CAO and, sometimes, in the Darwin office;
need for the CAO to establish a fresh profile, based on a model of excellent service and consistent
with redefined corporate values that focus on valuing people;
‘drifting’ of workers compensation and rehabilitation cases; that is, the lack of close monitoring
and dedication to resolution;
lack of confidence in material placed on personal files, access to files, and the lack of clarity about
the nature and location of staff files;
emerging needs of older staff, with a range of personal and health issues, combined with workplace
dissatisfaction regarding management style of handling their needs;
deep feelings of isolation in remote schools, and that they are ‘out of sight, out of mind’; and
insufficient resources in OCPE devoted to dealing with grievances, especially managing and
following-up recommendations with agencies at the time of the grievances assessed by the review.
I commend the appointment of Rita Henry and Paul Newman to their respective roles of General Manager South and General Manager Schools. I have high expectations for these two to deal with issues which have been identified. Whether they will, or can, or not, is yet to be seen. I wonder what political will there is behind them, when you see a minister who is conspicuous by his absence in his influence over this matter.
What concerns me, however, is that little action has occurred since the tabling of the report. We know that the General Manager is on extended leave until next year. That is her right and I do not have an issue with that. The issue I have is that this minister is prepared to sit back and do nothing until the General Manager is back. Reorganisation of the CAO requires the combined effort of both the General Manager and the General Manager Schools. How on earth can we expect the General Manager Schools, acting in the role of General Manager, to do his own job and the General Manager’s job and, at the same time, readdress the grievances that are still outstanding? The report was quite specific:
- … that it was not possible for the General Manager Schools CAO to be accountable for the oversight of
the operations of some 55 schools/education centres …
While we wait for the return to the full complement of managerial staff at the CAO, all aggrieved teachers will just have to keep their lives on hold. This is where the hypocrisy of this minister galls me. He sits there telling us that he is concerned about the poor performance of the CAO in DEET, but he is completely oblivious to the hardships and pain that many of the aggrieved teachers have suffered. He ignored their pleadings to him. One aggrieved teacher complained that the only time that the minister would respond to her, as I said earlier, was when she accepted her redundancy. This is the arrogance of the minister who hides his head in the sand. Well, minister, just like an ostrich, you may hide your head, but your rear is still exposed and the teachers can see you for what you are.
Let me now come to the findings of the report. I will stay away from reference to any specific persons. The reality is that the system has failed, and the person responsible for that is the minister. Do not blame the CEO although they have, ultimately, the responsibility of running the departments. Look at yourself, minister; the buck stops with you. What did the review find? It found that the CAO:
- …failed to consistently provide adequate coverage for employee relations issues in schools and within
the CAO itself.
Also that there were:
- … unclear roles, responsibilities and accountabilities …
And:
- … consequential undesirable effects.
It found that:
- … DEET CAO and DEET Darwin consistently took excessive time to respond to complaints and queries…
However, more importantly, the review reveals a number of examples of very poor human resource management practices by the CEO, principals and General Managers, both in Darwin and in Alice Springs. Also:
- …the Director of Human Resource Services Darwin and the Assistant Director of Human Resources CAO,
together with a range of more junior administrative staff, especially in the area of industrial relations,
entitlements, worker’s compensation and rehabilitation matters.
With the government policy of centralisation, officers based in Darwin have no idea about Central Australia - no local knowledge. Yes, they travel down there every so often, but they do not have the ethos of Central Australia. The report is clear on this. I quote:
- The long line of supervision of CAO roles from Darwin was seen to have presented a number of
difficulties, including:
- lack of depth of knowledge by some Darwin senior managers on the activities of subordinate staff;
When we have a culture of management at a CAO that labelled staff as, and I quote this one from the report:
- ‘people are a nuisance’
‘difficult people deserve their problems’
‘we know things about you’
‘rehabilitation is a nuisance’
‘solve your own problems’
‘do what you need to do but don’t cause a ministerial’.
One aspect of the review with which I disagree is the assumption it made, and I quote:
- … that any additional resource will be difficult to provide in the current climate and takes a rationalisation
and realignment approach to the CAO.
I am surprised that the reviewer was not aware of the torrent of money flowing from the GST into the coffers of this minister, who is also the Treasurer. Even so, the reviewer made a long list of strategies - page upon page of them. They are on pages 24 to 28 of the report, which I shall not read into Hansard.
They should be implemented for the CAO to get things in order. These processes should be put in place as soon as possible, not wait another few months over the summer recess and then come back at the start of the school year with little progress being implemented. Now is the time to get on with it, while school is in recess and the CAO can work without the additional load of managing schools.
The comment of the reviewer that CAO was concerned about the number of ministerials that were generated in the Central Australian region worries me. It is a clear indication of a culture of fear in a CAO. One needs to ask: why is there such a culture of fear? There are concerns of ‘do not generate another ministerial’, as if they were fearful that to generate another ministerial will cause them some wrath from above.
On previous occasions, I have stated that the public service has worked in a culture of fear under this government, with this government’s collective hand at the neck throttling the public service. This must be the case. When sections of a department are worried by the number of ministerials, it sends me one message: the department, at some time or another, had been hauled over the coals by the minister for the number of ministerials. What an appalling state of affairs when the public service is fearful of doing their job to give unfettered advice - to give advice without fear of foe. Now, what do we do from here?
Let me now go to the Office of the Commissioner of Public Employment. The report criticises the OCPE of being derelict in its duties. The report said:
- … OCPE should have exercised intervention at the highest level to demand higher quality reporting in cases
where reports were obviously below standard.
The OCPE had benchmarks for grievance processes but never followed up on it:
- The grievance processes at OCPE set a benchmark of ‘around three months’ to resolve a grievance after any
period of internal conciliation.
Reading from the report, it says:
- In the file analysis process, it was suggested that the performance standard was met on rare occasions.
Of the samples reviewed, the shortest time taken was 27 days and the longest was 358 days …
More than a year:
- … with an average of 205 days.
Those 27-day resolutions were very few indeed. I continued reading from the report:
- … when OCPE recommended that DEET undertake specific action to improve procedures, especially in
areas such as short-term appointments, the writing of selection reports and clarification of transfer
procedures, there was no follow-up mechanism to establish whether these actions took place. This
provided DEET employees with little comfort in the ability of the OCPE to really effect improvements
on human resource management policies and practices.
The fact that the OCPE failed to audit whether its benchmarks were being followed surely demonstrates that the OCPE has let down the public servants that it was set up to look after. The review recommended an implementation plan with clear time lines. Phase one was due to commence between April to June 2004. Considering that the report has been in the hands of the minister since June this year - so he tells us - I am prepared to defer the implementation of the report from the time he received the report, which was June. Therefore, between June and August at least phase one should have been implemented.
According to the report again, by February to March 2005 - according to the time line recommended by the review - everything should be in place, and a review of the overall achievements of the CAO should have been done then. Let us say it is deferred to at least the end of first term. I expect that will happen, or I will be asking to see that it happens. We can now expect all that time lag for many months.
Minister, what I am angry about is your inaction. In spite of a reasonably detailed report, complete with its findings and recommendations, all very clearly set out, you continue to procrastinate. And who suffers? Definitely not you, the minister. Not the CEO of the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Not the Commissioner of Public Employment. No, these persons continue in their highly-paid jobs. But the aggrieved teachers, what about them? Where do they go? When do they get redress on the injustice done to them? What do you say to the teacher who has had to take redundancy so that she can escape from the dysfunctional environment that she was trapped in? What do you say to the teacher who was sacked unfairly? What do you say to the teacher who now cannot teach in the Northern Territory - when he wants to live in the Territory - because of the injustice done to him?
Minister, you have a lot to answer for. You are the minister responsible for both DEET and OCPE. At the end of the day, the CEOs of both agencies are responsible for the operations of their respective agencies, and you are responsible for how they manage them. On your shoulders sits the responsibilities for addressing the wrongdoing on these aggrieved teachers. I trust you will do that quickly and let them get on with their lives.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am always hopeful when I see the member for Greatorex stand to try to get to the heart of an issue. He seems to swim through a sea of detail like a shark with blocked sinuses. He cannot see or smell the target, and all we end up with is this grand tour of all the extraneous things that he wants to bring into it.
There is a key issue in here which brought on the review, is addressed in the review, and now needs to now be implemented very strongly in Central Australia. The key issue is the culture that has existed in that Office of Central Australia for, not just the period of this government, but for many years. Let us talk about this culture. The culture is based on the fact that people managing from that office were facing the wrong way. They were, basically, facing towards the line of control up to Darwin. They were much more concerned about the rules and regulations and their positions within the organisation than they were for the key responsibilities they had, which was to support and encourage teachers and the programs they were running in Central Australia.
I will tell you what it is like to be a working teacher when you are faced with that sort of culture. I can tell you this absolutely from first personal experiences. If you show a bit of loyalty to your community, to the aims of the schools you have some responsibilities in, and what you end up facing was prescription from the regional office, oppressive decisions that were made, facing disciplinary actions many times, and many good, fine teachers who were committed to their communities faced disciplinary action because of the loyalty they were showing to their schools in that community.
The other group of teachers who suffered from this culture were the teachers who were vulnerable. They were often in very difficult professional positions, out bush and not coping well with the bush environment, and not coping with the teaching methodologies that they had to adapt to because of the uniqueness of the program out there. What should they have been getting from the Education Department, particularly from the regional office? They should have been getting timely support, encouragement and, certainly, a sense that the department was there for them to protect them from the vulnerability they were feeling.
Again, I could cite from personal experience a whole range of teachers who have been shredded by the lack of support that came out of that office over the years. That is the problem that brought on the review. We can go on all you like about the org charts, who is going to report to whom and other processes, and play the blame game, if you like. However, this culture is there. It was there when I was teaching, and I was teaching for nine years at Yuendumu and, before that, with Adult Education. I am talking right back as a very long-standing feature of the way the Central Australian Regional Office went about its business. I can say that many fine teachers have suffered because of the culture that was in that regional office.
I commend the minister for bringing on a review which was long overdue. It should have been done when Mr Hypocrite over here had a position of authority within the CLP Cabinet …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! This is really unnecessary and I call him to withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you withdraw that, please?
Mr Stirling: It has been used a hundred times today.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but in this case it was personal.
Dr TOYNE: Well, if it has gone out of fashion, yes, I will withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Dr TOYNE: However, it does really get up my nose to see the righteous indignation that is coming from over there, when this person was in a very good position to do something about this when these exact same things were happening over a very long period of time when he was in public life and they were in government. He has to be a bit careful here about how much he pushes the moral high ground because he has absolutely none.
There are many teachers who have suffered through the period that he was on his watch, long before it came to this minister to assess the situation and determine to do something about it. This minister has done something about it. We now have a document in front of this House with recommendations that will allow this problem finally to be addressed.
As one of the many teachers who had their careers blighted by the attitudes that existed within the administration and the management practices of the agency - and the professional and personal lives of many of my professional colleagues and my friends in that region blighted by this management culture that had established and maintained itself over many years within that office - I am very familiar with the many community interests that were hanging off the programs that were also being curtailed. One example is that many teachers out bush, because of what they are hearing from parents and the community leadership, have attempted over the years to try to move towards some provision of secondary education out bush. I have absolutely clear examples where that resulted in disciplinary action from the regional office in Central Australia.
What does that say to a teacher? If you listen to your community, act in a professionally responsible way, you cop the big stick from the agency. That is the ultimate cost of this culture that has existed in that office: it has held back the evolution of education in Central Australia for probably two decades. That is an absolute disgrace and tragedy.
I do not want to hear too much about who is to blame for this. I am not looking for …
Mr Dunham: You started off blaming us. God, you are a hypocrite!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr TOYNE: I am not looking for …
Mr Dunham: You are a hypocrite.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you will withdraw that comment, please.
Mr DUNHAM: It has been allowed, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr DUNHAM: I did seek clarification today …
Mr Stirling: You have been asked to withdraw, so withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr DUNHAM: Well, it has been allowed and disallowed and I have asked the Speaker today if the word ‘hypocrite’ was allowed.
Mr Stirling: You have been asked to withdraw. Chuck him out, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr DUNHAM: Madam Speaker has told me it is allowed.
Mr Stirling: You have been asked to withdraw. You are challenging the Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw, please.
Mr DUNHAM: Can I seek your clarification: the word ‘hypocrite’ is no longer able to be used, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No …
Mr Stirling: No, it was ruled out before you walked in.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will give an explanation in a minute. Will you withdraw?
Mr DUNHAM: I withdraw. I am very confused. You have allowed and disallowed it seven times.
Mr Stirling: You used it 12 times this morning.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The reason I am asking people to withdraw that is because the description is the person. They are not talking about whether the statement they are making is hypocritical. They are aiming it, as I regard it, as a personal insult and I am not allowing it in this debate.
Mr DUNHAM: I am happy to abide by the rules as long as they do not change.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Deputy Speaker, as I was saying, the aim that I have in addressing this report is not to go looking for scalps and individual people who should bear the blame for this – although, God knows they are out there - but to see that this sort of culture does not go on into the future. If we can see a supportive and a consultative culture, one that is sticking up for teachers and helping to support their programs, encouraging them to take initiatives and not just simply looking over their shoulder to see what they can punish them for, then I will then believe that at least that has been put right.
That is a form of justice. I am not looking for individual justice in this. I am looking for justice for my profession, for my region and for the communities that exist in the region and the interests that they have in our education system. If we get that out of this report, then that has been a fantastic breakthrough - and it is a breakthrough that was 20 years in coming.
I have huge faith, particularly in Rita Henry, and the new management that is going into Central Australia. I have spoken to Rita about her aims and motivations for taking the job in Central Australia - apart from the obvious that it is a great place to live and a very creative place to follow your profession. Rita Henry is the person that can put a professional culture in there, a supportive culture, one that can respond competently to the professional needs of the teachers and to the aspirations of our communities in Central Australia as regards education. I look forward to supporting Rita and Paul in any way that I can in my role in public life and as a local member covering a great deal of that region.
The cavalry has finally arrived at the pass. We can safely say that, if we have the right people bringing the culture we need in that office, things like all the other issues that the member for Greatorex wanted to trot through in his contribution - such as how it is going to be organised and timeliness of responses - will flow from that right culture. It is pointless doing any of that unless you have the right people with a commitment to the profession, the region and the communities that provide the kids that we have the responsibility to educate.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been a fantastic outcome to this. Next year will be ground zero in finally getting a support office that is going to allow teachers to get some confidence that they can contribute professionally to the evolution and continued development of education in Central Australia. I look forward to next year; it is going to be great.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): I thought there might be more contributions, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy to sum up, and I thank members for their contributions.
The member for Stuart spoke to me, at the time that I was starting to get representation from Alice Springs around these concerns, because I knew he would know, with his long experience in Central Australia, the veracity of some of this representation and the long history in some of those cases. When it was clear to me, on top of that representation and my discussions with the member for Stuart, I used the Public Sector Management Act, section 18(3), to order this report. Under that provision, I can receive a report into the organisational effectiveness of a workplace. I am also compelled, under Part 4 of that same provision, to table the consequential report in this place.
I spoke with different individuals involved with this who had grievances with the department, at different times on visits to Alice Springs. I always understood that the report flowing from this investigation was not going to be pretty. In fact, if it was pretty, I would have distrusted the report itself because my instincts were strong enough to realise that things had not been good down there.
The two most damning findings in the whole report were these: one, there was a lack of leadership. Once you have a lack of leadership, many other consequences flow from that, including, of course, the second most damning finding, which was that we had a culture that did not value people. A culture that did not value people is extremely concerning because we have people in remote parts of Central Australia who are doing it tough anyway. When they have a department representative in a leadership and management position on whom they ought to be able to rely for support in the first instance, and when that support is not forthcoming - in fact, worse than the lack of support in that you get intransigence and opposition to requests for support - then you have real difficulties.
They are harsh findings, but those findings themselves provided all the justification that I would ever have needed as a minister to act - and we have. The member for Greatorex asked when we are going to do something about it? The incumbents in those positions have long gone. The people who were holding down those positions - General Manager Schools, General Manager - are long gone. How did they go? Where did they go? It was because we had already taken action well before this report came into this House.
There is another point. He said: ‘You have hidden this report until Christmas’. This is dated 12 October, when I tabled this here. ‘Hidden until Christmas and we want to debated it on the last …’! We could have held it over until the New Year if you were so precious about it being debated today. It was introduced on 12 October; there was no attempt to hide it whatsoever.
The previous occupants of those management positions are long gone. This morning and again this evening, the member for Greatorex stated that he has confidence in the General Manager Schools, but he does not believe General Manager Schools ought be expected to resolve outstanding grievances at the same time that he is also holding that other General Manager position. Well, fair point if it were true. However, it is not true, because those long-term outstanding grievances are the province of, not the General Manager Schools, not the General Manager, but the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment once they are formalised as grievances.
The report also involved OCPE and the commissioner’s office and said that OCPE should have greater resources and greater labour behind the handing of grievances. This has been addressed. It was an important issue that came out of the report in its own right. OCPE, I believe, very importantly, is now building in early intervention strategies. That is the smartest and best, and the most effective and efficient strategy that they can employ: get to the heart of the problem; get to the base of it - the problem that the individual employee has - before positions become polarised between the employee on one side and management and the department on the other, and before people start to develop victim mentalities, while you still have a healthy person you can deal with. We well know how difficult these situations become once rationality starts to disappear. Communications are being improved and information on grievances and appeal processes are being strengthened, as per the report’s recommendations.
We cannot change what occurred. I am sorry that these situations arose there, and for the hurt and damage, in some cases, inflicted upon some of the individuals. However, what we can do, and what we have a responsibility to do, is to change it and to make it better for the future. That is why so many steps have already been taken to address the deficiencies found in the report.
I resent the member for Greatorex’s criticism of the fact that the General Manager is taking leave before taking up the position. She, like everyone else - and I imagine the member for Greatorex will not be shy about taking a couple of weeks off at Christmas, having been through Malaysia and India to look at call centres just recently. He will not be shy about taking a couple of weeks off at Christmas …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: … when he wants to bag one of the hardest working public servants in the whole department. He has criticised her very heavily for taking leave!
Dr Lim: No, I did not say that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, minister! Enough! We have been through this once before. It is Christmas; we could just calm down. Minister, I believe you can get your point across without causing half a riot in here. Minister, please.
Mr STIRLING: The new appointee to the position of General Manager in Alice Springs, Rita Henry, more than anyone I know, is entitled to have leave, and I resent the fact that she was criticised by the member for Greatorex for taking it.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday 8 February 2005 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Northern Territory Public Housing in Alice Springs
Northern Territory Public Housing in Alice Springs
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Macdonnell addressed to Madam Speaker:
- Madam Speaker,
I am writing to you to advise that I wish to raise a matter of definite public importance (MPI) on 2 December 2004
regarding:
- the current policy of the NT government in using the NT Housing stock in a manner that is deleterious to
the community of Alice Springs. Particularly placement practices that result in the destruction and damage
of the NT Housing stock, the erosion of civil order in Alice Springs (particularly in the Larapinta area) and
policies that erode the quiet enjoyment of other non-public housing tenants in Alice Springs by placing
inappropriate tenants in the housing stock.
Is the proposed discussion supported? I call on the member for Macdonnell.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister has already announced that he intends to give me a full dressing down on this issue today in parliament. Of course, that is reflective of the minister’s attitude towards this whole issue. He has not yet even heard the case stated from any member on this side of the House and, yet, he has made it abundantly clear that he fully expects to give me and this side of the House a dressing down over the issue.
Indeed, the minister’s attitude has been surmised by the fact that he sought through - in my opinion - devious means to bring this matter into the House in a ministerial report on Tuesday. He full well knows that he only has to speak for five minutes in a ministerial report, and any examination of what he says is limited to two minutes only. Therefore, the minister has sought, through the structures of this House, to try and avoid any debate whatsoever on this particular issue. For the people who read the Parliamentary Record in the future, they should read it with the understanding that the minister has used a means of introducing this matter into the House without introducing it into the House at all. Consequently, we are here at 7 pm on a Thursday evening of the last parliamentary sitting date available to us for the year, and I have to bring on an MPI, rather than the minister presenting a full ministerial statement - a statement which is capable of being debated by all members in this House.
The minister was not at a public meeting held a couple of weeks ago in Alice Springs …
Mr Henderson: He was in Cabinet.
Mr ELFERINK: … in spite of the fact that he was able to get down there the very next day to dish out cheques …
Ms Lawrie: In Cabinet.
Mr ELFERINK: The fact is, the minister is fully capable of making his way to Alice Springs and, when there are 200 angry residents at a meeting – standing room only in one of the local school lunch sheds - the minister has, fundamentally, avoided his responsibility. What he did was send in some public servants and let them cop the ear full from some very angry residents …
Dr Toyne: We were in Cabinet. You know we have Cabinet on Tuesdays.
Mr ELFERINK: The public were asking of the minister: ‘Where are you?’ I was asking: ‘Where are you?’
Mr Henderson: Did you tell them we had Cabinet?
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: As far as I am concerned, the minister’s non-appearance is indicative of his whole attitude towards this particular issue.
That public meeting raised issues that concern me very deeply indeed, which is why I have asked this parliament to suspend its business for an hour-and-a-half or so to discuss the issue of the government’s and this minister’s policy towards the public housing stock, especially in the Larapinta area of Alice Springs.
When I was at that meeting, several issues concerned me gravely. The first was the clear sense that the place Larapinta is not a safe place in which to live. This was evidenced by any number of speakers standing up and describing some of the things that have happened to them. That is also reinforced by the many stories that I have seen in the Centralian Advocate about issues coming from there - and we are talking about riotous issues. It is curious that what happens on Palm Island gets national news; what happens in Larapinta in Alice Springs does not get national news …
Ms Lawrie: Talking the place down again!
Mr ELFERINK: However, sadly, we have large bodies of people causing destruction and damage in the Larapinta area of Alice Springs and it is gravely concerning, indeed. So much so, that one lady stood and said that her child was so frightened by the noise and the constant disorder in that area that the child had been wetting its bed in fear of what was happening out there.
With all the interjections I have heard so far from members opposite on this particular issue, I wonder what comfort that mother will get from the fact that the members of government are sitting there interjecting about where the minister may or may not have been, when …
Mr Henderson: Cabinet.
Mr ELFERINK: … her child is in so much fear that it wets the bed.
Assaults were reported, people complained of being attacked in and about their homes, they felt unsafe in the streets; the Larapinta area has become unsafe - there was a sexual assault there not so long ago just prior to that meeting. There were people whose children were too scared to come home from school in the day because there were problems with civil order in the Larapinta area. Almost exclusively, the problem seems to be stemming - and the streams of phone calls and e-mails that I have received in relation to this - indicate that the problems are coming from the housing stock.
I have visited the Larapinta area and inspected some of the 290 dwellings which are housing stock in that particular area, and many of those dwellings are clearly being abused by the people who live there. Those dwellings are full of people; are often being used by people who do not belong there. They are sleeping there and leaving mattresses all over the front yards and backyards of those houses, and there is rubbish and litter everywhere. There are still disturbances occurring, as we speak in this Chamber. There will be disturbances in that area tonight.
The other part of this that concerns me is that, as the shadow minister for Housing, I will become - as the current Minister for Housing is - the landlord. It is not a landlord as in ownership, it is a landlord-ship which is held on trust. The people who have placed that property on trust are the taxpayers of the Northern Territory. These houses are being clearly damaged by the people living in them and, if not by the people living in them, by the people visiting them. Obviously, the tenants are incapable of controlling the behaviour of those people who visit them. Therefore, the government has engaged in a policy of using the Northern Territory housing stock to place people who normally, or often, would reside in communities in town. The housing stock in communities are all too often damaged by the people who live out there, and the housing stock in Alice Springs is being treated in the same way. Even when the tenant is looking after the place, they seem to be incapable of protecting the place from their relatives, friends or just strangers who happen to drop by.
Much alcohol abuse occurs in this housing stock in the Larapinta area and much civil disorder results of that alcohol abuse. The minister acknowledges that the situation is getting out of hand because he has decided to use private security guards to offset the effect of these people coming in and abusing the housing stock.
It is worth pausing for a moment to consider what public housing is: it is a privilege. As much as people talk about rights, in the Australian community, a person who lives in a house either pays rent to be in that house - the full tote rent - or they buy their own home. There are some circumstances in which the government will step in to provide housing for people who are considered needy. That is normal; something that all governments do. However, when that privilege is extended, as landlord - the minister - one would expect that housing stock would be properly looked after. Clearly, in many instances in the Larapinta area, that housing stock is not being looked after, and the consequential social problems that are flowing from them flow on to the streets of Alice Springs.
The problem is that, amongst that housing stock are dwellings that are either rented by people who pay the full tote, or they own those houses. At the meeting the other week, I heard one gentleman say - and I am speculating but I guess that he was a man of not substantial means - that his house had been devalued by some $30 000 in a six-month period. That is a shocking thing because this man has been saving, presumably, for a very long time to buy his house. To have what, ultimately, would be his nest egg into old age devalued in such a way is a consideration to which the minister must turn his mind. The effect of his decision to use the housing stock for the social engineering in which he is engaging does not stop at the fence of the property. The effect goes over the fence to the property next door, the road at the front, and the property at the back.
The minister’s refusal to understand that inappropriate selection and continuing support for tenants - despite the fact that the housing stock is being damaged or not looked after or that the effects of their choice of tenants is flowing on to the other yards - is a shame because the decision to ignore those effects affect other people who, under normal circumstances, should enjoy the quiet amenity of their own property, or the property that they rent at market rates.
The minister said he will provide security guards and any other number of things. However, the fact is that a security guard is an admission of failure. If the police force, which all too often is called into the area, is a available and that police force - which is substantially bolstered in Alice Springs by government spending in getting police officers on the ground - is not capable of dealing with the issues, so much so that the minister has to then arrange for private security guards to visit his own housing stock, he clearly has a problem and acknowledges that he has a problem by hiring the security guards. However, what he is not prepared to do is demand that his housing stock - the housing stock of Territorians that he has under his care - needs to be protected, and that other people who live around that housing stock have a right to be protected from miscreant tenants.
The minister, by announcing the policies that he has, has abrogated his responsibility towards keeping good order in the community. He is throwing his hands in the air and simply saying he will provide a number for people to ring so the security guards can sort the problem out when it is happening. Problem: what powers does a security guard have? The answer is: no more powers than the law will give them. Security guards will not have an effective power of arrest. What access will the security guards get to the lists of names of people who should or not be in that housing stock? What power is there for a security guard to move on a guest, or 30 guests? None. Therefore, all that security guard will be able to do is suggest that people move on and, when they tell that security guard to get knotted, what will the security guard do? Call the police, which only means that the problem has gone on for longer.
A security guard is window dressing. The problem needs to be solved by more effective and courageous means. That is the real issue at point here: how courageous the minister is prepared to be. To be courageous, you have to make certain decisions. What decisions are available to the minister? Well, here is a decision: eviction. The people who were at that meeting the other day, generally, thought that eviction was a very good idea. It was suggested from the floor - I suggested it, and said that, should I become the Minister for Housing in the Northern Territory, I would not be averse to using it.
The point was, as the department quite correctly pointed out, that the Residential Tenancy Act required that people came and gave evidence before the tribunal to move people on. Well, those people told me that they were too scared to do that because they were terrified of retribution. That is not Australia, the Northern Territory or Alice Springs - or at least it should not be - that people are too frightened to go and give evidence in a court of law or in front of a tribunal. The response from the department was entirely proper: ‘Well, if you cannot come forward, we cannot break the law’. One does not expect them to. However, will the minister stand up here today and say that they will change the law to make eviction easier, or find a way around the problems that these tenants have? No, I certainly expect not.
I also point out that the minister has another option available. There are 290 dwellings in that particular area alone. That is a very high concentration of dwellings and, obviously, that concentration has led to a social problem. One of the answers is to change the nature of the housing stock. Sell it, is what I am talking about. What I would do, as the Minister for Housing, is identify the class of people who require housing. If the class of people who required housing needs a high level of management, then I would find a method by which - and formulas would have to be sorted out - that housing could be made available. However, that costs money. Where could I get that money from? By the sale of the housing stock. I would take inappropriate housing in inappropriate locations, find a solution that will fix the problem there by disposing of that stock, and using those funds to create stock which is suitable for the client base.
This is not the first time that this has been done in the Northern Territory. Where it was done the last time, under Housing 2003 policy, was where a review of the housing stock was done which found there were lots of three-bedroom houses, and what was identified as a need was one- and two-bedroom flats, that is exactly what was done. The three-bedroom houses were sold, and more one- and two-bedroom flats were built. What I am arguing and suggesting is exactly that: start using the housing or developing the housing stock in an appropriate fashion. However, this minister does not want to do that, because he is the great social engineer and he wants to find his own solutions by using the existing housing stock and telling a lot of other people to get knotted along the way.
The other thing that you can do is raise the police presence in the area. With all due respect to the police force, the superintendent who attended that meeting that night was clearly surprised - and said so - by the depth of feeling that was out there. That surprise is not shared by members on this side of the House, because we understood that there was an increasing problem in that area. Therefore, for quite some time, we have been saying that we would develop a police shopfront in the area, and look at staffing that shopfront for as long as it was necessary to contain the problems that were occurring in that area. I am not talking about building a full police station, but a shopfront which is policed and manned at appropriate times to concentrate on that area; to create civil order where it is needed.
It is the first duty of government to make a society safe. This minister’s decisions are having quite the opposite effect. He is not adhering to his first role as a minister of the Crown, which is keeping our society safe and keeping the peace and good order of the Northern Territory intact.
Every so often, it is the decision of a government to change their attitude and tack in relation to how they provide housing for people. Sadly, the last social experiment - which was the return to country stuff - sees many houses in the bush empty, right now as we speak. The minister talked about spending $850m on housing in the Northern Territory. Let us start filling up some of the outstations which were built at great expense to the taxpayer …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, your time has expired.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, let me place on record what happened in Alice Springs. I was approached by a couple of residents in the Larapinta area who had bought homes next to a complex that caused them a great deal of problems. I wrote to the minister asking if he would attend a public meeting. He sent two of his senior staff instead. I spoke to the police and their representatives came. I invited the Commissioner of Tenancies, who came down from Darwin. We had representatives from the Lhere Artepe elders. We had representatives from Aboriginal Housing and Information Referral Service. I asked the Mayor to chair the meeting, trying to make it as little a political meeting as possible, which probably did not work. Of course, we produced a flyer which the neighbours then distributed for us around the neighbourhood.
Let me say that the problems that were occurring in Larapinta at the time were not confined just to Larapinta. We had them in other parts of the Braitling electorate. As you all know, we have a high level of public housing in the Larapinta and Braitling areas. We had some hot spots; there is no doubt about it. One of the things that has helped solve hot spots has been the declaration of making some of the complexes for seniors only. That is a good thing and I am pleased the minister has done that, because that means the people living in those units at least feel secure.
However, the problem with the particular unit complex was the fact that there were a number of visitors coming into town who flowed around the neighbourhood, because there are many families who had connections there. It just created problems, because there did not seem to be any understanding of protocols of what you do when you come to visit people into town. It has a history of problems.
Since this minister has been Minister for Housing, I have written him 23 letters. That is a fair few on any one particular topic. I have had 62 contacts by constituents who have complained to the department. I do not include those ones who have come from the other electorates who have come to my office as well. I have only kept a record of those who are my constituents. You can see it was not a simple problem, and it was not just one or two people having a beef. It has been ongoing for some time and there have been, as I say, 62 contacts to my office.
To help resolve it, I called a meeting earlier in the year with the minister, who came. I only invited a few residents to that meeting, including one senior pensioner who was quite frightened of where she lives in a general complex. I wanted him to understand leaving pensioners in general complexes can, sometimes, put them at risk. I invited some of the people who had bought their homes next to complexes and were having a great deal of problems. We had one lady who lived in a complex in Elliot Street - and I am sure the minister knows that. She has left town since then, because she said she could not take it any longer. We were losing people from Alice Springs because they were just so unhappy with what was going on.
When you look at the history of the number of contacts and all the things that had occurred, calling the public meeting was sending a strong message to the minister saying: ‘Hey, you are not listening, you are not reacting. Your officers protect the department’. I can remember one of your advisors saying to me: ‘Oh no, no, that is not true’. It was true, and she had to come back and admit it later.
We had an incident of a fire in one of the Lyndavale flats. The person next door was a young girl with a little toddler. It happened late Friday afternoon. She rang the emergency housing saying: ‘I cannot stay in this flat; it is smoked filled, everything is damaged, I have a young child’. What was the response with that emergency number? ‘Oh we cannot do anything about it now, ring up on Monday’. What do you do in a case like that when you have such an unsympathetic landlord? I am a landlord. If I treated my clients, my tenants, like that they could easily take me to court and sue me for duty of care, I am sure.
It is those sorts of consistent things that have been going on: the denial of the problem, the lack of reaction, the placing of tenants in clusters in a neighbourhood who do not get on with each other. The minister knows we had people from Willowra. Willowra is not a very healthy community at the moment. Why put people who are going to fight each other, who do not get along with each other, in the same neighbourhood? Selection of tenants to go into houses has to be very carefully done.
At that meeting, at which there were nearly 200 on a count, a number of issues were brought up. I guess, minister, you have heard them over and over again. The police, at least at this meeting, acknowledged that they did not realise the depth of feeling of the residents. They acknowledged they were not aware of the safety concerns of young children going backwards and forwards from school. They were not aware of how neighbours were having such sleepless nights. Although they take a while to respond, they just were not aware of the problem, as such. That was a good message for them. However, what I found out at the same time was, even though they might turn up to something out at Larapinta, they then did not go back to Housing the next day and say: ‘Hey, we had a problem in your units, go around there and sort out what is happening, find out’. There was a bit of breakdown in communications there, and I believe now that protocol has been fixed. At least the police will inform Housing when they have had a call-out to a particular house or a group of flats.
It is those sorts of things, minister - the fact that people put in a complaint, they risk being threatened and abused by the troublemakers for doing that, and they are then not even given any feedback from the Department of Housing – which are probably the most frustrating things of all.
The tenants have a tenancy agreement, and this is what frustrates people. They have seen these tenants’ agreements. They are breached so many times but nothing seems to happen to pull them in line. If you want to get to the real end stage, which is eviction, you then ask these neighbours who complained to stand up in court and provide evidence against these people. That, of course, is a threatening situation for anyone. Therefore, of course, they do not like to do it. To be honest, minister, people do not want tenants to fail, because much of the problems that occur are actually from the itinerants, the people who are visiting. That is my problem: you put tenants in and you wait until they fail before you do anything. You really need to make sure when you put tenants in you give them the means to succeed in their tenancy. You give them the means to know their responsibilities and what they can do, and the means to say ‘No’ to their visitors.
Unfortunately, the grog signs at the moment that you have put up - which I agreed was a good idea - had no teeth. I have written to the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing asking him whether there is some way, if you have this sign in your house, ‘No grog allowed’, and the police are called around because you have a drunk, the police then can take the grog away or tip it out, similar to the 2 km law. I know it is a tricky one because it is on private property. I know it is tricky because you cannot say, ‘My house is a dry area’, and have the police enforce it. However, there must be some way - perhaps the way you are doing it with petrol - that police can respond to these neighbours who are tyring to keep their households reasonable.
Let us face it, minister: some of your tenants have voluntarily gone because they have been humbugged so much and are so distressed after receiving pressure from the neighbours, they have gone. We have to make sure we have a system whereby these people, if they have a good reason to have housing in town, do not fail. That is what we are saying: do not fail.
Minister, the Lhere Artepe people, who are the traditional owners, have said to me: ‘What would happen if we want out to Papunya and behaved like this? Do you think that would be accepted by those Pintupi people or the Pitjantjatjara?’ No, minister, it would not be. If they behaved like these people who come into town on their land on another community, I do not know what the consequences would be. However, it would not be allowed to happen; they would be banned, at least. It is the sort of behaviour that would not be tolerated in communities by a different group of people. Why should the Lhere Artepe people have to put up with that happening in their country?
That is something you will have to assist them with because they have already had a meeting saying: ‘Help us! We need to find a way to control this’. We have suggested that you run a campaign of telling people, informing people. Get the elders from out bush to come in, as you did up here, and talk to the Lhere Artepe people. At least get some communication going so that you do not have a situation that grows enormously because people do not understand their responsibilities and, culturally, some of these people just cannot say no. It is something, minister, that we really need to take care of.
I am pleased that you have started to react. I am pleased we had security patrols. On the first night, what happened? We had e-mails saying: ‘Hey, we had a peaceful night. It was great!’ So that was good. What tonight will bring, we will wait and see. What the weekend will bring, we will wait and see. It is something we have been trying to get you to do for a long time. In fact, you promised that back in April, and it has taken all this time to get it. That is good.
We will be waiting to see whether some of the other things you have promised happen. I know you have put additional staff down there, and that is the right thing to do because, obviously, you have an enormous problem in Alice Springs and you have a very small, skinny staff in the department there. It is important you give the staff more assistance and more people to get out there and help. You have to use some of the skills of the people in Aboriginal organisations that are already there. We know there is expertise there: people who communicate well and who want to make it work. So let us get them working together. Let us solve this problem.
Minister, what people said most of all is that they are not blaming the tenants; it has mainly been caused and fuelled by alcohol, and also by too many people. Let us face it; when you have, as we heard at that meeting, eight people in a two-bedroom unit, 20 people in a house, it is a health risk, minister, because we know where they go to the toilet. We know that rubbish accumulates in their yards. You cannot stand by and say: ‘We cannot tell them they cannot have visitors. We cannot tell them how many they can have. We cannot tell them how long they can stay’. From a health point of view, you can. That has to be addressed.
If Housing cannot do it on their own, let us bring in all the other agencies to help them. I understand the Housing people have an enormous workload. However, if they are not coping with it on their own, there are other agencies to help them. That is what we have to start seeing: a solution of working together to sort it out. People have sympathy for people who need housing. We know there is not enough housing out on communities. If there ever should be a priority from the federal government, it should be providing more housing on communities.
I spoke to one of the Lhere Artepe people, and we talked about the fact that people cannot drink out on the communities, that they are all dry areas. Of course, we both agreed that is a nonsense; they are not all dry areas. The amount of grog out on those communities that is coming in the back door – the member for Macdonnell smiles – they are awash with grog. Do not kid yourself; they are not dry communities. The trouble is they are doing it all the wrong way. I like a glass of wine with my meal, you like a beer with your meal. Why do we not start giving Aboriginal people that right? Why are we saying: ‘No, you cannot have it in your community, but if you sneak it in the back door and sell it for $100 a slab, that is fine’. For goodness sake, stop treating them in this protected way.
I will be asking the minister for liquor to review the dry areas and the legislation. It has been there for a long time and no one has ever really gone back to see if it is working. To be honest, the dry areas legislation is not working; it is creating all sorts of problems because people are not drinking in a sensible way. They are not learning to live with alcohol; it is as simple as that. Why do you not do a trial? Why do you not put some money into resourcing a social club? Give them a community centre; train the staff to work in a club situation; put a limit on the number of grogs. I meant to bring in the list I have of all the Top End centres that actually have club licences. They are all in the Top End. You do not have one in the Centre. You may say: ‘Oh well, that does not work up here, they are bad, etcetera’. However, tell me a licence that has not at some time, been revoked. Melanka, Bojangles, The Gap, they have all at some time breached their licence and had it revoked for a while.
Therefore, minister, why not think about doing this? Make sure it is a community centre where people can purchase a meal. Make sure it is a community centre where, perhaps, you have a film on once a week, or you have a darts competition, because you love darts - or something to make people feel that their community is worthwhile staying there. At the moment, they have nothing. They do not have enough houses, they do not have any social life, except the booze that comes in by the back door, so they come into town. We are at the stage where we have to start thinking a bit more laterally. We cannot keep being blinkered and going on the same way all the time. It is just not working, minister, and it is causing problems for not just Alice Springs, but I would say for Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin as well. We really need to think differently. Do not get locked into this mentality that we have. Let us start helping these people.
I feel sorry for the people who have bought homes in this area. They are right when they say their values have gone down. The sad part is they bought it because Larapinta is a beautiful area to live in. We would have the best views in town in that area. It is a great suburb; we have two great schools, a great preschool, a lovely oval, the Desert Park across the highway. It would be one of the best suburbs to live in. We do not have any alcohol outlets in Larapinta - none. All the alcohol is coming from other places. Of course, people like living in it, because it is a good place. However, unfortunately, it has all been a rather sad story over the last few months.
Minister, help people before they fail. Keep doing what you are doing, but do not stop, do not back off. Keep making sure we have some wins on the board, because that is what people will want to see. They will want to see that some of the initiatives that you have introduced actually work - not just for the people who live in the area, but visitors. Make sure they have protocols established so they do not come in and destroy the life of people living there already.
It is a sad thing, minister. I am sad that we had to get to the stage of having a public meeting. After 62 contacts with your department and 23 letters to you, you would have thought something would have gelled; somewhere a bell would have rung, and you would have said: ‘Okay, we have a problem’. It would have been nice if you had initiated it rather than have it come from me and residents. Minister, you have a hard job. Do not back off; do it.
Mr AH KIT (Housing): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, in addressing this motion, I am amazed at the audacity and hypocrisy of the member for Macdonnell. Might I add that, in listening to the member for Braitling, there was, to me, a part of that hypocrisy also.
I want to make it clear from the outset that it seems to me, the story that has been portrayed in regard to public housing was never a problem prior to the 16 August 2001. If it was, all those problems were solved; they were all sorted out. Minister Lim, as the then minister for Housing, was on top of everything. There was no antisocial behaviour; everything was sorted out and it was great. When the member for Braitling was the minister for Housing, it was great - no problems in public housing throughout the Northern Territory; no problems whatsoever. However, when Labor won government on the 16 August, all the problems surfaced. I cannot accept that, nor can Territorians or the residents of Alice Springs, I would think.
I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear to the House and the residents of Alice Springs that the seeds of the current problems we are experiencing with humbug from unwanted visitors, and antisocial behaviour, has been planted as a result of the wilful neglect of the previous government. They were planted, at least in part, by the policies of politicians, as I said, who were ministers for housing under the previous government.
To understand the truth of the words of the member for Macdonnell’s motion, we must understand that it was the former government which sold off and allowed the wholesale neglect of Alice Springs public housing stock. It was they who allowed the destruction and damage. It was they who caused the current overcrowding, housing shortages, and homelessness through selling of Alice Springs public assets, which has led to acknowledged problems in Alice Springs. It was they who actively promoted the erosion of civil disorder through decades of starving the NT Police Service of police officers in Alice Springs. It was they who allowed a general run-down of the condition of housing stock throughout the Territory - an issue which is only now being addressed by us through our urban renewal program.
Let us look at the facts. Under the previous government, a total of 622 dwellings were sold in four years - I repeat, 622 were sold in four years. From 1977 to 2001, 46 one-bedroom dwellings; 57 two-bedroom dwellings; a massive 476 three-bedroom dwellings; and 43 four-bedroom dwellings were sold. This is a total of 1760 bedrooms missing from Alice Springs. And guess what? The current demand for public housing in Alice Springs is 641 dwellings or 1837 bedrooms. The mathematics is simple: if housing stock sold by the previous government had been maintained, current demand would be far less than 100 bedrooms. The result of this pillaging of housing stock is still being felt today. The wait time for a three-bedroom dwelling in Alice Springs is 39 months. This equates to 3 years and 3 months for a family in need waiting to be housed.
The former government - with two of its former Housing ministers present here today - will have you believe that it is about the more appropriate alignment of stock. The member for Braitling stated in this House, in her capacity as Housing minister, on the 14 October 1999, and I quote:
- … it reduces the level of unneeded public housing stock and provides funding to construct new dwellings
to meet particular needs …
… we are now making real progress in addressing the match of housing stock to need.
She also went on to say:
- Some of the problems evident in public housing are not primarily problems of housing - they are social
or individual problems which manifest themselves not only in housing …
The only way we will tackle this problem is through a cooperative and coordinated approach that draws
on the resources of a range of government and community agencies. Public housing is a part of that service
network.
On 13 October 2004, the member for Braitling accused this government of not addressing the problem and trying to find a solution to it: ‘We are always putting a bandaid on it’. This comes from the former Housing minister who, under her care, saw the widespread rip-offs of housing stock in her own electorate.
Since the election of the Martin Labor government, Territory Housing has been responding to the local community to act against tenants responsible for antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. There has been a general indication that much of the antisocial behaviour relates to visitors rather than actual tenancies. There is also a need for tenants to manage their visitors and deal with them accordingly. It is rarely, as the member for Macdonnell claims, inappropriate tenants, but unwanted and inappropriate behaviour of visitors.
Minor complaints are often resolved immediately by tenancy staff contacting the tenants. Since July 2002, there have been 12 complaints to the minister regarding antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. As at 29 November 2004, 12 tenancies in Larapinta are currently identified as having antisocial behaviour issues and are being monitored. Territory Housing takes these issues very seriously. While members opposite claim otherwise, all they are really doing is attacking hardworking public servants who work in stressful jobs and, who, I believe, have their hearts in the right place. I would advise the opposition to stop belting up on them. They know the problems. They are your fellow citizens working their guts out to make Alice Springs a better place for the whole community. As public servants, they do not have the luxury of grandstanding while making cheap shots.
The Antisocial Behaviour Action Plan details both the immediate and medium- to long-term actions Territory Housing is taking to minimise incidences of antisocial behaviour in public housing. I will explain the action that has been taken in Alice Springs. A new security contract has been awarded for nightly security patrols of large complexes identified as hot spots, and to attend other areas as they are called. This will operate seven days a week, 13 hours a day. This service is being run by a local company that commenced two nights ago. The firm, Shane Rider Security is contracted for three years for this work and will be reporting to the department weekly, with daily incident reports to both my department and the police. While no complaint calls have been made in those first two nights, they have reported four incidents, all of which were resolved, including with police assistance in one case to remove an unwanted visitor.
A radio campaign in remote communities is being developed to raise tenants’ and potential housing applicants’ awareness of their responsibilities as tenants and neighbours, and of the behaviour expected of people visiting Aranda country.
Two additional staff will be employed by January to provide dedicated case management and urban living skills support for problem tenancies and new tenancies. An indigenous community liaison officer has recently been employed to work with tenants, tenancy staff, and support agencies to address issues as they arise. There has been implementation of the good neighbour policy to provide information on rights and responsibilities of tenants and advise on who to contact for assistance when problems arise. This information is available to the general public from Territory Housing offices and on the Internet. The Keith Lawrie complex is undergoing extensive redevelopment and redesign to reduce opportunities for antisocial behaviour.
Public housing applicants continue to be required to provide references prior to allocation. For applicants without references, three month probationary leases are granted in some cases, or housing deferred until applicants are able to demonstrate ability to successfully adhere to a tenancy agreement. The application process is being strengthened to ensure public housing applicants understand the requirements for living in public housing. Interpreters will be used for this purpose. Where necessary, applicants will be assisted to prepare for a successful tenancy.
A dedicated project officer, jointly funded by Territory Housing and IHANT, is being recruited to develop a robust Urban Living Skills Program that will be delivered to people who need it. Territory Housing has a strong relationship with police to ensure intelligent and proactive management of hot spots and a focus on reducing disturbances.
Housing alternatives for people who are not able to live in public housing, or people who may need additional support to maintain a successful tenancy, are being developed and supported; for example, the establishment of specific accommodation for renal patients is being investigated.
Territory Housing continues to work closely with the Community Harmony strategy, which provides successful services such as the Night and Day Patrols and Return to Home program. Territory Housing continues to strengthen the working relationship with police and Tangentyere Day/Night Patrols who cooperate in patrolling and monitoring identified hot spots.
Complaints regarding antisocial behaviour are fully investigated by Territory Housing. Tenants are advised where a complaint has been made about them, and the consequences if their behaviour does not change. All complainants receive a letter from Territory Housing acknowledging the complaint and detailing what actions will follow. Eviction action is pursued in situations that cannot be resolved through focussed tenancy management, mediation, counselling or police intervention.
To evict a tenant, Territory Housing is required to provide evidence in court. Courts do not take eviction lightly and the onus is on Territory Housing to provide sufficient evidence of repeated interference with the reasonable peace or privacy of neighbours. This evidence may be in the form of police reports of visits to the dwelling, letters of complaint, records of verbal complaints made, and witness testimony. Territory Housing is bound by the decision made by the magistrate. While Territory Housing will continue to pursue eviction where necessary, we also respect the rights of the tenant. Eviction is not always the answer as, in some cases, it is not the tenant who is causing disturbances but a visitor whom they are unable to control. It would be unjust to punish the tenant and reduce them to homelessness when they are as much a victim as the rest of the neighbourhood. Nor would this solve the problem, as the tenant would be removed and, possibly, homeless and the visitor could just move to another house to cause problems for another tenant.
That is not the action called for by the member for Macdonnell, who stated on 18 November 2004:
- I don’t think that Territory Housing, as landlords, needs to be shy about evicting people. If people are not
up to scratch, then they should be sent on their way.
My question to the member for Macdonnell is: where are you going to put them? Public housing is often the housing of last resort targetted to the most in need in our community. Is he really saying that public housing problems will be improved through greater homelessness? During the same period, he went on to say that the CLP government will solve the housing problem of Alice Springs by stating that they will:
- … sell off the public housing stock to meet a new type of demand on Territory public housing. You change
your stock to suit the market.
This is exactly what the previous government did not do. In the period 1997 to 2001, they did not replace a single dwelling. They sold off the housing and sold out residents of Alice Springs. Not a single cent of the $34m raised during this period went into public housing in Alice Springs. The previous government effectively stole $34m of assets from the people of Alice Springs.
For the information of members opposite, the highest waiting list in Alice Springs is for three- and four-bedroom dwellings. What kind of accommodation are you suggesting? Second-rate accommodation for indigenous clients? Is it his solution to solve housing problems by increasing homelessness? We know that, under the previous government, you ripped off the people of Alice Springs for their housing stock and, if re-elected, you will do it again because you have not learnt. Nothing has changed; your policies are the same. You have learnt nothing.
The Martin government has taken action. We have informed our tenants and the wider community about our rights and responsibilities of tenants for the Good Neighbourhood Policy. Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, minister.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I am pleased the minister did have a chat, because I would like to comment on a couple of things he has raised. I will do that eventually. However, it is appropriate that this matter be debated.
Two ministers - the Minister for Central Australia and the Minister for Housing - were not at the meeting ...
Mr Henderson: They were in Cabinet.
Ms CARNEY: They say that they were in Cabinet, as does the member for Wanguri - who should be quiet during this debate, I would have thought. However, two ministers were not there. I cannot recall their apologies being given. Since they were not there, then they might have the courage to call another meeting, and we will see how courageous they are. If they are fair dinkum about actually listening to the people of Alice Springs they might decide to call a meeting so that they can hear with their own ears the depth of feeling that was at that meeting.
I was standing at the back. I did a pretty thorough count, and 220 or thereabouts was what I came up with. I have never been to a public meeting with that many people, nor have I been at a meeting where people had such a depth of feeling. I have never seen anything like it. Even though it related to Larapinta residents, the fact is that there were some people from the Gillen area - that is my electorate - there. The issues that are in Larapinta are not confined to Larapinta; they are in the heart of Alice Springs generally.
I was amazed to hear the sorts of the things people were saying. People were not getting any sleep and, as the member for Macdonnell said, someone’s child was having bed wetting problems. People were talking about how their property prices had gone down, and they were very concerned that they were continuing to go down.
I am a regular doorknocker. I reckon I know my electorate pretty well. Three years ago, the state of the public housing in the electorate and the tenants was not an issue that came up very much.
Ms Carter: Hear, hear! The same in my electorate.
Ms CARNEY: It is now a ‘top of mind’ issue. It is in the top three. Three years ago, with hand on heart, I could not have said that - and I stress, I am a regular doorknocker. I note the member for Port Darwin has a similar experience. Therefore, it does not come as a surprise that the meeting was called and that there were so many people there.
When I am out doorknocking or, in fact, even when I am just driving around Alice Springs, I can see the houses that are public housing with bad tenants. You can do that without even knocking on the door. They are the ones with not a blade of grass in their front yard, with rubbish everywhere, and the house is literally filthy. That is before you get to the front door. When I do go doorknocking, I knock on every door unless I feel unsafe. There is no one’s door I do not go to. As I approach a public housing dwelling where I know - where you can tell it is going to be an interesting experience - I feel for the neighbours. I go up to the door and, because you can tell as you are entering the front gate that the tenants are pretty ordinary, when they open door, it is confirmed. Occasionally, people have invited me in.
Why is that, under this government, those people are not evicted when, especially their neighbours, are complaining about the smell, the filth, the appearance and the noise that is coming from those houses? The minister, with all of his resources in government, with all of his ministerial staff, surely would know that this is happening. I am a citizen of Alice Springs, obviously, but you do not need to be a rocket scientist to work out what the problem is. I noted that the minister referred to the fact that people could be evicted. I will ask him how many people have been? As I am going through my electorate, there are an awful lot of people who cannot possibly be fulfilling their requirements under their tenancy agreement; it is just impossible.
The Labor approach is house at any cost; give people housing at any cost. Our approach is no, no, no; there has to be some level of obligation or responsibility. If you do not, or are unable or unwilling, to play and live by the rules, then you do not deserve to live in public housing. It is as simple as that. There are alternatives, and the member for Macdonnell spoke about them. I do not know why it is that the Australian Labor Party grapples with this concept. I have my suspicions but, unfortunately, time will prevent me from going into them.
The minister referred to this entire situation as a bit of humbugging. This is not a bit of humbugging when people come in - family members in many cases - and cause difficulties. Sometimes, it is the tenants themselves. It is more than humbugging; it is causing the people who live nearby endless amounts of distress.
I challenge the Minister for Central Australia and the Minister for Housing to call a public meeting. They will not get 220 people; they will get 440 - the numbers will double; such is the depth of feeling. I put up that challenge, and I also invite the minister to tell me how many people have been evicted, because I do not think many have been. Such is the cringe of this government that I do not think many have been, because they adhere to the philosophy house at any cost.
This government, like all governments, has a responsibility to all of its citizens, not just some of them. For the minister to ask the question: ‘Well, what are you going to do with public housing tenants? Where are the going to go?’ - there are solutions. Equally, what he forgot to address – I will withdraw that, I suspect he deliberately ducked it. Forget about the public housing tenants for a minute; think about the house on either side and behind. I, like you, Madam Speaker, have had numerous contacts from constituents. Similarly, I have had numerous contacts with Territory Housing. People tell me that they get rubbish, nappies, thrown over the fence; noise at all hours of the night; screaming, yelling, fighting; filth, the stench - it is just disgusting. This would not be allowed to happen anywhere else in this country - anywhere else in Australia – and, yet, members on the other side stand by and say house at any cost. It is not desirable to house at any cost when the neighbours are being driven out of their mind and out of Alice Springs as a result of the declining property market and of putrid, horrible, screaming tenants next door who do nothing other than make the lives of their neighbours a living hell. The minister does not seem to understand the issue. It is: look beyond just the tenants. You have, minister, a responsibility to other people who live around them.
What has also happened in the last three years is that now constituents are ringing me saying that there might have been a couple of public housing dwellings in the street. When one lot of tenants move out, they ring me and ask me what I can do to ensure that better tenants move into the new house …
Mr Ah Kit: To ensure no blackfellas move in!
Ms CARNEY: That better tenants move into the new …
Mr Ah Kit: To ensure no blackfellas move in!
Ms CARNEY: You should do me the courtesy of listening, you slug! Listen!
Mr Ah Kit: You red neck dog whistler!
Ms CARNEY: Just listen, you might learn something!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: Now!
Madam SPEAKER: Well, are you going to call a point of order on the minister?
Dr BURNS: No, just calling him a slug. It is not ...
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw that, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, and minister, you restrain yourself.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You can always tell - and I said it yesterday - when they get twitchy on the other side, because they resort to either inane comments or yelling. I am happy to match the minister any day of the week in that regard.
As I was saying, people ring me and ask what I can do because their families do not like living in a street with terrible public housing tenants. Do they mind living in a street with good public housing tenants? No way. They are very happy to live with good public housing tenants, but they do not want to tolerate - and nor should they, these people who come to the desert for whatever reason; to bring up their kids, get a job, live happily ever after - their streets and their homes become nightmarish owing to the appalling conduct of some public housing tenants.
I do not know whether I need to draw pictures for this minister, but in his response he demonstrated a very obvious inability to understand this problem. He should come and live in my electorate. He should go and live, perhaps, in the member for Braitling’s electorate and see what it is like. I have said this was a top of mind issue; now I am thoroughly of that view. There is one example and, since the minister started to talk about Aboriginal people - and I note the member for Macdonnell did not refer to Aboriginal people - but since the minister introduced it, I will tell you one of the saddest stories I have heard. It is a person in your electorate, Madam Speaker, but there are no boundaries in Alice Springs. Sometimes, people in my electorate see you and the same applies to me. This young woman, with a 16-year-old daughter, lives in a block of units in Alice Springs. She has told me that she and her daughter are the only white people in that complex. I do not believe that is sensible allocation. This mother told me, as her 16-year-old daughter was walking in …
Mr Henderson: Allocate properties based on race.
Ms CARNEY: Member for Wanguri, if you have a contribution, I would be very happy to hear it. You have kids, you might be interested in hearing this one.
As her 16-year-old daughter came home from St Phillip’s at 4.30 pm, there was a bunch of Aboriginal housing tenants outside. She and the mother heard, as the 16-year-old girl was walking past, one of the Aboriginal blokes say: ‘I would not mind a piece of that white meat’. If that does not distress and anger you - I do not know - then you are completely devoid of emotions and conscience. I find that story stomach turning and, I might say, very upsetting. These people also had some airconditioning problems recently. I know that an offer was made to this mother and her daughter to go and stay with some friends. That was last week when we were experiencing 40C heat. The mother said that she felt so vulnerable in her house - in other words, she thought it would be broken into - that she would not take up the offer to go and live somewhere else, even for a couple of nights, because she was sure her house would be broken into. That is not humbugging, that is not appropriate and yet these are the sorts of stories that are coming through and that this minister is just dismissing.
Mr Henderson: Never happened when the CLP was in government.
Ms CARNEY: I pick up that interjection: never happened under the CLP. Garbage! You give me the time of a public meeting where 220 people turned up to voice, in very angry terms, their dissatisfaction with you lot, the government, and the state of affairs in Alice Springs. Give me the date, member for Wanguri. Come on, you are such a smart alec …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, we could keep on going on about this issue. It is appropriate that it has been raised as a matter of public importance. The minister is devoid of answers. He talks about the security guards. I share the member for Macdonnell’s comments. What powers will they have? He mentioned that it might simply be ‘move on’ powers. Well, that reminds me of the ‘move on’ laws that this government was so keen to get rid of. ‘Oh, we do not like move on laws, they are no good’, and yet their own security patrol will probably only be able to move people on. Not good enough, minister.
I challenge you to call another meeting. There are a number of issues. I might just put this to you, minister: how do you feel about 19 applications issued by prisoners for public housing? The member for Macdonnell wanted to raise that. I invite you to also to make some comment about that in due course. In any event, don’t you dare come in here and accuse the member for Braitling and others of hypocrisy - don’t you dare! Don’t you dare accuse us of hypocrisy.
You mob, if you are serious, will call a public meeting. You will get on to this problem and you will do what you are paid to do; that is, be responsible for all citizens, not just some of them.
Dr TOYNE (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I have a pretty good flavour of what would have been said at that meeting. It is not the sort of meeting that, typically, in the history of these issues in Alice Springs, has resolved too much at all. It is probably a starting point in that it allows people to vent a whole lot of feeling and anxiety about antisocial behaviour which is, no doubt, there.
What is probably faintly silly about this is that it has become reconstructed as a narrow public housing issue. It is not. The reason it is not is that we have been talking about and acting on these issues in town ever since I have been in Central Australia - over 20 years - that I am familiar with. I can remember times when over 200 river campers would get into drunken brawls. I can remember occasions when people were trying to carry out sorry business following the death of a family member in the river bed, and things turned ugly because of drunks coming in or because the purpose of the gathering was misunderstood. I can remember Gerry Baddock, that calm and rational lady who had some terrible problems with creek campers - in her case, at Charlie Creek. They camped right outside her property.
We know there has been a longstanding history of antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. It is pissing on trees, foul language, littering, and vandalism; we know that. When we came to government, there was still a very active and large population of people camping in the river bed. They are not there today. There was a large population about 18 months to two years ago in the CBD carrying out violent feuds, mostly armed with knives and clubs. That was going on right outside all of our offices, if you cared to look through the window, and that is not there now. I wonder what has happened.
What has happened is that a lot of people are looking for a solution to whatever the pattern is on the day that can alleviate the effect on, not only the town as a whole, but also on the more vulnerable people who are caught up in these antisocial gatherings around the town.
In the last couple of years, we have seen some significant changes in the pattern of this type of behaviour and its distribution around town. What we have seen is no more river bed; it then went to the town camps. The town camps then took action, as they must, to try and keep some semblance of law and order around the town camps. It has now gone increasingly to public housing - initially Keith Lawrie flats - and now it is spreading out into areas around the town.
We know that, and we are following that pattern to try to deal with it as it occurs in each place. I will be calling a meeting when I get back. It will not be the sort of meeting that the member for Araluen is talking about, because we know people are upset about these sorts of activities. Black, white or brindle, if you have a bad neighbour, it is not a good experience. I had a terrible neighbour at one stage when I lived in Melbourne. Nappies flew over the fence and there was incessant noise all day. Guess what it was? It was a day care centre. From our point of view, there was no such thing as a peaceful day at home because you had screaming and yelling and nappies flying over the fence.
The answer today is the same as the answer was two years ago when we were dealing with river campers; 18 months ago when we were dealing with homeless kids and violence in the CBD; a year ago when we were dealing with antisocial behaviour impacting on not only the town camps, but on other camping areas around town. Whether it was in the public parks or up in the hills behind people’s houses, and the answer is always the same: we have to get people together who will search for a solution that will impact on that. Some of that actually requires some help from the people who have authority in the various indigenous groups in Central Australia.
In many cases, Lhere Artepe is not going to be able to impact on behaviour of people coming into town. It needs some support from the remote communities and from the people of authority in their families. It might come as a surprise to the proponents for action here tonight that there is a huge level of concern about this in the remote communities. They do not want to see young adults coming in and getting into this merry-go-round of violence and drinking. What it amounts to out bush is that you have this continuous round of either visiting hospital, going to funerals and sorry business, and seeing the whole fabric of the family come under enormous strain. They do not want that. There are many people out there who want to help. That is where we can start looking for solutions. It is not about public housing; it is about antisocial behaviour by people coming into town, and believing that that sort of code of behaviour is an acceptable code of behaviour. It is not acceptable to their families; it is not acceptable to the general community. We have to find a raft of actions that can be taken to deal with this new form of the same old problem in Alice Springs.
I will call a meeting all right. As Minister for Central Australia, I am more than happy to call a meeting of people who have provided solutions in a constructive way in the past, and will provide solutions to the problem to hand. We will support what the Minister for Housing has already put in place, with the measures put forward during his contribution to this debate. We will look for other people who can intercede, whether it be the police through some actions they can take or Tangentyere Council, which can take some actions through their Night Patrol and the like. We will look for ways of perhaps providing more guidance to people in maintaining a household. We will for some of the authorities available to us from the communities and within the families of the people who are coming into town.
What we cannot do is go following this problem around and bulldoze all the public housing that they happen to want to move into. This is just Looney Tunes …
Ms Carney: Would you evict anyone?
Dr TOYNE: We have Cawood Court. The two of you, there you were saying: ‘Right, bring the bulldozers in’. Now look at the development there. Look at the development of the city. It is a fantastic development, and you would have lost the whole lot.
Here we go. Keith Lawrie flats – away we go again. Caterpillar Carney: ‘Let us do the Gaza Strip. Send in the bulldozers. Let us get rid of that lot because, look, there are people drinking out on the lawn there. So, get rid of the buildings’.
It is an insane way to try and deal with this problem. It is not about houses or about flats; it is about antisocial behaviour which requires a strong and holistic approach to it from all of the government agencies and the non-government organisations that have responsibility for such matters in the town.
I have a lot of faith in the town. The member for Braitling was one of the ones who stood during the Alice Springs parliament, as I remember, and reminded people – to her credit – that Alice Springs should not be talked down and bagged for some sort of political capital. I believe you have to have faith in our town to find these solutions and work toward a community that belongs to everyone and does not depend on us establishing this little enclave: ‘We are going to protect it from these black hordes pouring in from the bush’. It is not going to work that way. We have to find a way of living harmoniously together. If that means doing something powerful about antisocial behaviour, count me in, because I know a lot of …
Ms Carney: What might you do?
Dr TOYNE: Unlike you, I could probably name hundreds of the people who are in that situation in Alice Springs from my electorate. I know them and their families by name, and I know that their families want to do something about this problem as well. This gets down to human lives; it gets down to the stresses that go back to the family when a family member is stuffing up their life. That is what the bottom line is in the indigenous interest in this.
However, we have a much stronger and a higher interest as a town to make this thing work. We are not going to be able to tell our fellow Australian citizens that they have no right to live there; go back to where they belong. They belong where they choose to belong. They live in Australia and, as long as they obey the laws of the country and of the Territory, they are welcome to live anywhere. We cannot solve this problem by saying: ‘You do not belong here, go back home’. Who is going to make that judgment?
Ms Carney: If you muck up, you do not belong.
Dr TOYNE: You do not belong here unless you live the way we think everyone should live …
Ms Carter: Hear, hear!
Ms Carney: Exactly.
Dr TOYNE: Hardly a blade of grass is what the member for Araluen used as one of the criteria of someone who does not belong in Alice Springs - hardly a blade of grass. Look, the Arid Zone Institute is going around saying: ‘Do not grow grass, do not grow grass; we use too much water’. I do not know if a lawn is going to be one of the criteria for allowing people to live in Alice Springs? Please!
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, settle down!
Dr TOYNE: The criterion is that the people live a law-abiding and a harmonious existence in their neighbourhood.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs Miller: That is exactly right.
Mr Elferink: But it is not happening.
Dr TOYNE: Okay, we have agreed on that. Let us have a look at how we can do it. We will get all the people together who need to contribute to the solution, alongside what the Housing Minister has already put forward. We will have a meeting. It will not be a meeting to spread fear and loathing around the place. It will not be a meeting on a Tuesday, because we are always in Cabinet. It was very clever to call a meeting on a Tuesday, because you knew we would not be there. Unfortunately for you, we had our staff there and we knew exactly what was going on. We will not be going in that direction.
It is good to hear the level of concern around the community; that is a good starting point. However, it is not the solution. The solution is to get people together who can put the programs together, bring the people together who need to make an impact on the problem. We will do that, and the Minister for Housing has made a good start on it. We will build on that. Let us find an answer. I am sure the town will, and I will be in there to do my best on it as well.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be put.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, we do not have motion. Thank you, everyone, for the debate.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: Before you start speaking, may I make a few comments because I have guests waiting for me. I just want to extend the compliments of the season to all members here tonight, and hope that you have a restive period of Christmas and January with your families. I hope you come back refreshed next year.
I want to send the compliments of the season to the staff of the Legislative Assembly.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: As you all know, they do a great job looking after us as best they can. To Kathy Cercarelli, my assistant, who always seems so pleasant and unruffled – she is amazing and she just gets the job done so quickly. To the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk who share their expertise and knowledge with us; to our Clerk Assistant, Gaddy, who is there prompting us along and making sure we say the right words; and all the staff in this building who are associated with making sure the business of the House runs smoothly. We need to thank the Hansard staff. They are up there often unseen, but they do a tremendous job under the guidance of Helen Allmich. I appreciate what they do.
We also have an administrative component that you do not really see, but they are the ones behind the scenes making it all work for us, and I thank them. The drivers always look after me with politeness and they are very obliging. I hope they do not get called out on new year’s day or Christmas day by any of the ministers. I hope they are allowed to enjoy their Christmas, too.
I want to make special mention of my electorate officer, Robyn, who has been with me for 10 years now. Her knowledge of the community and contribution to my life in the electorate is really great. To my family, who have stood by me through what has been a rather difficult year for me, I am looking forward to having Christmas with my four grandchildren and the rest of my family. I know that everyone here deserves to have a good Christmas. We might see you all back here next year, and who knows what next year will bring. Merry Christmas to you all.
Members: Merry Christmas, Madam Speaker!
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak about Did Smith, who was the very reason why I ended up in Alice Springs and why I am here today. In 1981, my then young associate and assistant in a medical practice in South Australia asked that we come to live and work in Alice Springs. The reason why he wanted to come to Alice Springs was his father-in-law, Did Smith. Did and Dawn had been asking him to bring their daughter back to live in Alice Springs for a long time. Finally, we did and, when I came to Alice Springs for the very first time, I stayed at Did’s home at Lindsay Avenue. From there, I got the medical practice in Alice Springs going.
Did passed away on 10 October this year. An obituary was written in the Centralian Advocate and I would like to paraphrase some of the information that it contained:
- David Smith, known as Did or Diddy to his friends, was a modest, hardworking man who treated
everybody equally.
He also had a big heart and knew how to celebrate with his friends.
That is how his son Stephen, 48, remembers the Alice Springs-born man who pioneered and developed
Mt Allan Station.
Did died on Sunday, aged 74.
This was written on 15 October.
When I met him, Did had Mt Allan as his cattle property and he was semi-retired. Half the time he lived in town, the other half of the time he was out at Mt Allan looking after cattle. It was soon after I moved to Alice Springs that he sold Mt Allan and then, essentially, he retired full-time. That is when I believe his interest in horse racing was developed. At the service, Steven Smith, his son, read out a poem which I would like to read into Hansard. If I cannot finish it, I ask that the remaining part of the poem be incorporated into Hansard. I seek leave to have this incorporated into Hansard, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Leave granted.
- My Dad, Diddy Smith, 4/10/1930-10/10/2004.
have gone at last, but he was a lively
bushman in the past, and he’s an old fella
I simply call me Dad.
Now whenever I’d go and visit him, he’d
always meet me with a grin, and a
handshake from Dad, was always just part
of the deal.
He’d say, have a coffee with me son, the
water’s hot and into the kitchen we’d both
trot, and sit-down for a good while, for a
yarn. And you know, I always liked it
when I saw my old mate and I always
liked the stories that he’d
relate, especially about those old days
when he was young.
Dad told me he was born when 1930 rolled
around, when Alice Springs was still being
referred to as Stuart Town and the freight
had just changed over from camel teams,
to the legendary steam Ghan train.
Now Flynn, as we know, was a missionary
with some clout, organising hospitals and
Morse code radios in the places further
out, and it accounts for why Dad was born
at Adelaide House, the hospital and home
of the AIM. And he attended the school in
Hartley Street, for the blackboard lessons
with the mates he’d meet, and everybody
knew each other in the town in those days,
but now called Alice Springs.
Now when he reached 12 in ’42, he saw those
military convoys, with their hardware,
passing through, and he walked those
dusty streets with those khaki’d men.
Then he did some droving trips with
Baldy Heffernon from Ti Tree during that
war and it was the first real job that he
managed to score, and his love of herds of
cattle must have grown after that. Then
he was packed off down south to Prince
Alfred College, possibly to pick up a little
more knowledge but the way he described
it to me, he picked up a couple more mates
instead.
Then out there on the Tanami
track, a soldier’s settler’s block was
handed back, and it won by his father in a
fair dinkum ballot draw. So now without
a single thought or hesitation he left
school at 17 to start Mt Allan Station
and begin his real working life in 1948.
Now there wasn’t any fences out there
yet neglected, because there simply hadn’t
been any yet erected, but a couple of
handy stock route bores stood on the site.
So with ex-Yankee military Willy’s jeep
that he borrowed money for, from the stock
agents, reasonably cheap, and a tent and
a bit of gear, he headed out.
Now the centre pole tent he had, well that
didn’t last long, so he built himself a mulga
bough shed, good and strong, and he
managed to live under that for roughly
seven years, and with a rainwater tank for
a ration shed, I suspect better men than he,
might have gone off their head but, as he
told me, he felt like the king of all the land.
Well, he put up mulga fences all around with
the Aboriginal people who came in from
the surrounds, then with a number two
Southern Cross, sunk some bore holes
down, an art he’d learned from Sandy
Cole, then went over to Yhamba, to bring
cattle back, to start to stock up the place.
He was young and fit and full of ideas and it
was amazing how his herd grew in those
early years, but I suspect Brian Bowman,
with his no-worries ways, would have
known the answer to that, because if a
mickey happened to stray on your land and
you had a castrating knife and a DDT
brand, why it was just another way to make
your day.
Well he really felt he had a handle now, on his
own life’s race, as he continued to set
himself a whip cracking pace, then he and
Willy Cole sunk most of the dams
on the place, with a cable blade dozer from
the war. But his life was yet to really come
alive, until he met my good Mum in
54-55 and she was really the type of girl
who could sweep a man right off his feet,
and when they married in 1956, he had a
brand new homestead already half fixed
with just a bit of finishing off to do, so he
said (a little bit different, the story from
Mum). Well anyway, it doesn’t matter,
they soon had three kids all running
around and started to get visitors from
both bush and town and they threw some
parties of great renown, still talked about
today.
Well the family went through bad droughts
followed by heartening rains, but the next
door neighbours, they all went through the
same and amongst themselves, they were
known as the North West Club. Now when
things came good, he thought he might
join the outback racing scene, his horses
weren’t that fast, but he was keen, and it
took him a little while before he even won
the first race. Then Johnny Brumby got
him his first race cup on Hellfire Jack and
after that he was a fairly hard man to hold
back. Oh! the joy of winning and the
backslapping from your mates. He had
horses like Kianti, Eltoro and a bay
called Cheyanne, fast horses that would
have been the pride of any man, but he
really had a soft spot for his mares like
Zora and Louise.
And it was Stuart Anderson that always rode
Dad’s best, and he mostly got them past the
rest, but I’m happy in knowing I trained a
few winners for my Dad myself. But after
winning cup after cup, Dad finally
decided to give it all up, and one day he
just gave the whole game away.
Well I know most of Dad’s dreams all turned
out just fine, and I know he didn’t always
toe the line, but I also know he helped a lot
of people out. Rich man, poor man, broken
arse, it really didn’t matter what your
class, he seemed to treat everyone just the
same, and sometimes he was a very easy
touch, as he rode along on life’s big rush,
but that was Dad all over, thinking every
handshake was from a mate. But it’s only
a true pioneer that would truly
understand, what it was like to tame a part
of this great land.
Yes, Dad, I think, was surely a man born for
his times. And while father time will
make a wild man tame and the wind of
change has its way with a burning flame,
you know you’ll never see men or times
quite like that again. But with a swag and
a saddle and a good camp horse, there
isn’t a hill or a valley that a man can’t
cross, where the cattle pads out there are
all just outback roads.
Well time marches on and old folks go
slowly, and there’s always a lot about them
that we’ll never know, but one thing is for
sure, those type they give it a go, and I’m
mighty proud of my old man, and I’ll
always think of him and his stories, as far
as I go, like the time he had 900 hawkeyed
bullocks all on the toe, with lightening and
thunder flashing around, bringing every
last rushing head, to the rail head in town.
Yes! That’s my old mate Dad, when he was
young.
Did has left behind Dawn, whom I know very well. I saw her and his three children Stephen, Virginia and Tracy the day of the funeral. Virginia and Tracy now live in Darwin and work, in fact, with David Meadows, my young doctor associate who is now the AMA President in the Northern Territory. Stephen is married and lives in Alice Springs and works in the tourism industry.
With the little time I have left, I would like to also convey my Christmas wishes to everybody in this Chamber: my colleagues, members of parliaments on this side of the House, as well as members of government. Over 12 months, we have had lots of argie-bargies in this room and, sometimes, it makes it hard to understand how we try to be pleasant to each other at times, and other times we just cannot seem to bring ourselves to even be nice to each other. However, maybe that is the result of hard politics; that we fight hard to bring our points of view to this House and try to win our arguments. Well, 12 months of hard arguments will always create feelings that, sometimes, might not be as good as can be. I, at least, believe that for Christmas time that we put those differences aside and feel, for at least a moment, some positive feelings for each other.
I would also like to pass my regards to all the staff of the Legislative Assembly, from the Clerk himself down to everybody who has worked so very hard to support us in this Chamber - for Mr Gadd in the back office down there. My regards go mostly to this lady who is sitting here in the front desk, Vicki Long, whom I harangue quite regularly about IT services, she being the Director of Corporate Services who supports our needs in this Chamber and also in our electorate offices - wherever we have our electorate offices. I take my hat off to you for your patience in dealing with us. There are others, like Terry Hanley, who is the secretary of the PAC. I have worked with him very well, along with my past workings with people like Rick Gray who, sadly, has decided to retire from this Assembly.
Most of all, amongst all the work that we have done in parliament, the biggest support comes from family and friends. Without the support of my everlasting loyal wife, Sharon, who manned the home fires, as it is described, very patiently - I spend a lot of time away from home. Working as a member distant away from the state capital, it is not an easy job and, usually, the family carries the brunt of the difficulty. When we travel and work, meeting with lots of people, we are captured by the work itself and tend not to worry so much about time being away from home. However, the person who is left behind has an empty house to look after, and it makes life a bit hard for them. I thank her for being the ever-supportive wife. Let us hope we have a good Christmas together in the next few weeks. At least we see my children - who are now scattered around the country - once a year, which is a good thing.
I would like to thank the members of my branch executive of Alice Springs, who have been very supportive throughout the year, and my electorate officer, Caroll, and my substitute electorate officers when Caroll is away sick or up here on seminars - Chris Cope and Christine Potts - who have been around to help me whenever there is a need.
For the people who work in the Leader of the Opposition’s office: Kylie, who has been away having a baby; Tasma; Renee; our media staff, Lyrella and Gary; and, most of all, Mr Greg Weller, who is our Chief of Staff. He has been most helpful in the work that we have done here.
Merry Christmas, everybody. Come back safely next year, and we will start again in the debates.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, 2004 has been the most productive year for Parap Primary School in my electorate, and its school council. I suppose, at times, the year has been challenging, at times frustrating, but a real tribute in the end, to the contribution and commitment of the school’s teachers and parents and, of course, students. The school redevelopment was the focus of many meetings over 2004. Some of them were pretty volatile, but agreement was reached about the school’s redevelopment. I would certainly like to say well done to all those involved.
The school council this year is a very hardworking council, tackling a whole range of tasks, including two major fundraisers in the year - the sports night and the fete. They have done a school action plan; they have been responsible for the running of the outside school hours program, and the setting up of a task force to examine the viability of an early childhood community day care centre combination to be developed in Parap. They have been very busy and my thanks go to the members of the council, to the principal, Dr Mick Myers, deputies Barry Kepert and Liza Day, the chair of the council, Tanya Fong Lim, and Iain Summers, David Moodie, Theona Mitaros, Tania Lawrie, Monica van den Nieuwenhof, Allan Manton, Jude Ellen, Andy Bartels, Karen Brown, Philip Roberts, Amanda Buckley, Lillian Lesueur, Nathan Taylor, Geoff Gillman and Kerry Hudson. I hope everyone’s prepared for another exciting year at Parap Primary for next year.
While I am talking about Parap, long-serving teacher and deputy, Liza Day, recently retired after 34 years of service to teaching. Liza began teaching in Melbourne in 1970 and moved to the Territory in 1977, where she has taught at a variety of schools here. However, the bulk of her teaching has been at Parap Primary - 18 years of that. She was senior teacher from 1986 till 1990, and then assistant deputy principal and deputy until 2004. I must say that I am very proud to say that, in the time that my children went through Parap and that I have known Liza, she has become a friend. She certainly demonstrated that she is a teacher with great commitment and talent; much respected and loved - and I say the word ‘loved’ quite consciously - by both students and parents. That is really no mean feat.
Liza strongly believes in teaching as a profession, and the importance of education capturing the young. Therefore, she has focussed her teaching years on teaching those in primary. She has, and will continue to have, endless patience with her young charges.
Liza managed, in her time at Parap, to be involved in so much of the school’s activities - whether it was through sport and being involved in sports night, after school sports, as well as her passion for netball, or in wonderful school events like the now notorious end-of-year Parap school concert. Year after year, students amaze their parents with quite wonderful performances - singing, dancing, reciting, writing and performing plays – all great fun and superbly brought together by Liza Day.
I cannot talk about Liza without talking about netball, as I mentioned, and her love of the game. It was and is a contagious love, because many of her students were encouraged to play as well, and joined local teams across Darwin. I would like to thank her for the inspiration she has been to my daughter, Chloe, who now - I can say with much pride - is doing netball at the Institute of Sport. She loves it, except getting up at 5.30 am on Mondays.
Parap School students, parents and teachers are enormously sad that Liza has retired. We will miss her and her expertise and professionalism. All wish her well in the next phase of her career, whatever she and Alan decide to do.
Another one of my schools is Stuart Park Primary. What is characteristic of Stuart Park Primary is that they are such a supportive and happy mob to work with. The school council is the backbone of the community and consists of Ian O’Reilly, who is the chair, assisted by Nea Harrison, secretary, and Carol Metcalf, who is the Treasurer. All the council members contribute and I would like to acknowledge them by name: Matt Kelly, Alexandra Mullins, Louise Bennett, Tina Dureau, Ian Redfearn, Linda Parnham, Pam Tregear, assisted by staff members Bernie Bree, who is the principal, Judi Samuels, Denise Vincent, Donna Harding, and Ros Coggan from the preschool.
This year has been a packed year for the Stuart Park Primary School Council, and I will only be able to cover some of the highlights of what has been a very busy year. The school council, for example, promoted community input into the secondary school review and compiled a school response. They have undertaken several very productive fundraising activities which have provided funds for a new reading scheme for early childhood, a new playground for upper primary, and funding professional development for teachers to attend Tribes training. Tribes is the process to which the school aims to promote a culture that maximises student potential and human development. Well done to Stuart Park Primary and the council, and congratulations on a terrific effort.
The annual school concert was once again a huge success, with over 100 community members attending.
The school also this year has seen the development of a three-year school development plan. This was done in consultation with staff and community members and will be taken to the new council in 2005 for ratification. Most importantly, the school council has always been there to provide support for staff and students of the school to improve learning outcomes, and to ensure a safe and productive learning environment.
Of course, the best present for Stuart Park Primary at the end of this year was to find out, after some intense lobbying, that they have one of the final allocations of a special education teacher. Principal Bernie Bree is delighted by that. I thank my colleague, the minister for Education, for recognising the need of Stuart Park.
Darwin High School is the electorate’s public secondary school, and it has been another very busy year for what is the Territory’s largest comprehensive secondary school, with over 1200 students. Working with government to plan for the $8m-plus first stage development of the school took many hours this year, as did the school’s response to the secondary education review. That response from the school was a very comprehensive and professional one. Also the tenders for the school’s redevelopment will be let in January, and there is a lot of excitement about that.
The school, this year, has also developed all new school policies, a new strategic plan, a four-year computer upgrade program, many professional development initiatives, and has hosted, as usual, overseas visitors, delegations and exchange students. I would certainly like to congratulate this year’s new principal, Marion Guppy, and her deputies and her staff for really a fine years work.
Congratulations also to the school council chaired by Peter Garrigan. Also on school council are Jan MacPherson, Graeme Lewis, Steve Carter, Greg Bonson, Janet Farnell, Derek Farrell, Sue Gleed, Charlie Manolis, Chris Nagy, and Marie-Louise Pearson. The round table members are Emma Walsh, James Farnell, and Jana Lai. Staff members also include Ruth Rynehart, Eileen Bell, Ann Hosking, Sally Crawford, Tony Copland, Marion Guppy and Penny Biessbarth. Other members and subcommittee members include Anne Disney, Jenny White, Penny McIntyre, Laurence Ah Toy, Tony Fitzgerald, Steve Margetic, Steve Southwood and Ian Winch. They did a great job this year. They had some challenges, and look forward to the challenges of the school redevelopment actually happening in 2005.
Since the redistribution that we have had across the electorates in the year, Fannie Bay now has another school - which I am delighted with - and that is St John’s College. I have already made my first visit there as the local member, and was delighted to meet Sister Phillipa, the other teachers and a number of their students.
Another feature of my electorate are two very active residents associations, one is the Parap Residents Association and the other is Stuart Park. I would like to talk about what they have done over this year.
One of the joys of my electorate is the active sense of community and community involvement, and one of the key groups is the Parap Residence Association. I would like to mention the members by name because I fully recognise the effort they put in to our suburb. Congratulations and thanks to, Monica van den Nieuwenhof, Wendy and John Macdonald, Ash Dally, Sharon Wilson, Rick Edmonds, Anna Zahn, Betty Vogel, Jean Vickery, Bobbie Thompson, Ray Taylor, Juliet Murphy, Greg McNamara, Dr Arun Mahajani, Jessica Horn, Robyn Lesley, Louise Jones, John Gilbert, Claire George, Helen Galton, Gerry and John Copeland, Peter Radtke, Stephen McNamee, Beth Hogan, Frieda Evans, Ron Weepers, Mavis Lindon, Annette Milikins, and Christine Brownjohn.
This year has been another great year in Parap, and the residents association continues its good work. They have seen their lobbying for the Arafura Bowls site come to fruition. They were a catalyst in the creation of Friends of Vesteys, concerned with the preservation of the foreshore, and critical in the reestablishment of the Fannie Bay History and Heritage group. They have also contributed to the new Planning Scheme and acts, including input for the 50 km/h traffic zones and Gregory St traffic issues. Their next project is canvassing the community for input on the Telstra-owned OTC site. The Parap Residents Association are committed to a more balanced approach to planning in their suburb, while trying not to ignore the very important issues of building stronger, more vibrant communities. My congratulations to them.
The other association is the Stuart Park Residents Association. It is a group of very community-minded and active people. Under the chair of John Brears, together with Joan Brears as secretary, Christine Millowick as treasurer, Liz Nicholls the vice-chairman, Michael Kilgariff the public officer, and members John Leishman, Jill Rechner, Dianne Szarkowicz, Cyril Young, Deidre Allen, Helen Bateman, Chris Bond, my colleague Sue Carter, and Steven McCallum, it has been a productive and exciting year.
Some of the events for this year include active involvement in the review of the NT Planning Scheme and Planning Act with DIPE; active examination and study of the traffic problems in Stuart Park, including the junction of Duke St and Stuart Highway; Duke St and the new Francis Park development; and the clearway inbound on the Stuart Highway in morning rush hour.
The Stuart Park Residents Association is just about to launch an interactive web site dealing with issues in the neighbourhood. In addition, they are looking at the drainage problems at the junction of Nudl Street and Verberg Court, lack of maintenance to Darwin City Council parks, and the Buff Club parking area, just to name a few. In addition, the association successfully lobbied to resist some commercial developments that they believed were against the broad community feeling of Stuart Park. It has clearly been a most active year, and I commend everyone for their extensive involvement and their contributions.
Finally, on this last day of parliamentary sittings, I extend my thanks to everyone involved in the work of the parliament. After what, at times, seemed like a long 2004, now we are at the end of it, it seems to have gone very quickly. To the Speaker, the Deputy Clerk, the Clerk and all the staff of the Department of the Legislative Assembly, to those who do that very tough job of taking it all down - thank you Hansard, to the security people who keep us all safe, to the important people like Toots and the others in Speaker’s Corner for the food that keeps us all going, and to our drivers who get us here and back - and my personal thanks to Gary Wilkshire; to the IT staff, who keep the technology operating; and to the cleaners who keep us tidy and, particularly, keeping the vegetation in my office going - in particular one small plant for which I am very grateful - thank you to everyone.
Thank you also to all the staff who work in this building on the fifth floor and on the fourth floor; our colleagues on both sides of the House, and our two Independent members.
I would also like to thank our hardworking electorate staff. They provide an important contact for people in the electorate and, inevitably, put in very long hours. My particular thanks to Jessica Horn, Christine Gray, Chantel Vigona-Ross and Brian Martin - and thank you to all the staff who assist those who work in our electorates.
As well, I would like to thank the chief executives and their staff in my department. In the department of Chief Minister, including policy, Office Territory Development, Office of Indigenous Policy, Community Engagement through the Office of Youth Affairs, Women’s policy and Senior Territorians, Management Services, and, of course, the Cabinet Office, the Department of the Chief Minister operates across government and coordinates major projects. I certainly appreciate their commitment, the long hours they put in, and the superb product they produce.
My thanks to Arts and Museums, where I know the staff are always working to promote and support culture and the arts within our community. It has been a pretty big year in the arts area, and I know that that is really a tribute to the work that we see from the staff.
Last, but not at all least, the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. It is just about a year that I have been Tourism Minister, and it has been a much better year for all those involved in tourism. Our Tourist Commission does a great job in working with the industry, promoting the industry and, I believe, has the confidence of our industry.
I also thank my colleagues. It is sometimes tough but, with much pride, we do work well together. When you have worked together for about three-and-a-half years in government, you start to value what it is to have people who have differing talents and make differing contributions. That is probably one of the key strengths of our government and, particularly of our ministry: that we do respect the different talents of different people, and their contributions and hard work. To all my colleagues, many thanks. Sometimes, we put in some very long hours, and you have to learn a great deal of patience, I suspect.
I suppose tonight is also an opportunity for all of us to reflect on our good fortune at living here in the Territory, and our safe and peaceful lives in Australia. My thanks go to everyone who has worked so hard this year, and our families and friends who support and love us. All of us know that, sometimes, we really push our families hard and, at times, your worry about whether you get the balance even near right.
Particular thanks to my staff and the Office of Chief Minister, and to everyone who works behind the scenes to support us all. From me to everyone: have a safe and festive break over the Christmas/New Year period and may be all have a 2005 of peace and goodwill - that is ignoring all the long hours that we will put in.
A special thanks from me to my family: David, Jake and Chloe. When you do a Year 12 year, sometimes you feel as though running government is a lot easier than managing the first time that you do Year 12. I am looking forward to our results.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much, and I appreciate the great kindness that has just been extended to me by the member for Nelson, but I shall not be on my feet for long.
Without dwelling on all of the people in the House, I thank all staff of the Legislative Assembly, especially you up there, Hansard. I know you are listening. Wakey, wakey! To everybody in the parliament, I appreciate and thank you very much.
To my electoral officer, Kate Whitecross, I thank her very much as well for all of her efforts; and all of the other people who I will not bother to list, who have helped me over the last 12 months and over the last - gee whiz! – seven-and-a-half years. It goes quickly, I have to say.
The reason I speak tonight is that, at the CPA AGM meeting the other day, we discussed the use of the pool table. It was decided - and I was rash enough to suggest that I organise a pool comp over the next few days. That has now been completed. In the grand final, the member for Macdonnell and the member for Araluen played off against each other, and I am devastated to announce that it was actually the member for Araluen who won. I seek leave to table the draw and the results of the pool competition. I appreciate the members putting up with the annoying little green tags that I have stuck all over their computer screens, but it is very hard to work out a six-round pool competition amongst 25 people in three days. However, it has been done. Perhaps next year, we will have a few more people looking at the grand final if we are not doing it just before Christmas. I seek leave to table the results.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: Merry Christmas to your, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: And to you, sir.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I should I say the member for Macdonnell did me too. I thought you would have done better in the final.
Mr Elferink: Oh no, I got whooped, man.
Mr WOOD: I would like to cover just a few topics. The Howard Springs Landholders Association started off in 1980. Last week, it signed off on its last official meeting. The Howard Springs Landowners Association started before Litchfield Shire Council came into being. It has been an important local body of people who had great concerns about the future of the rural area. In their time of existence, they fought many battles with government and government departments over the ways in which the rural area would be developed. One of the most famous ones was the small blocks that were to be developed at Howard River Park. They certainly got under the skin of the then Chief Minister, Mr Paul Everingham, when they said that they did not want it. In the end, the government overrode them, but that left a long memory with many of those people about how government sometimes overrode the wishes of the people.
There have been many members of the Howard Springs Landowners Association over many years. They used to meet regularly at different people’s places through the rural area and enjoy a cup of tea and some home cooking. As I said, eventually they have decided, I suppose, that they have become redundant and to call it a day. They have kindly given over the last bit of money in their bank account, which was a little over $500, to the Howard Springs Volunteer Fire Brigade. All their records will handed over to the Litchfield Collection at Taminmin High School for keeping, as part of historical record there.
Another issue is the famous bridges that went missing. I thought that I would touch on those. We have not found them yet; they are certainly still missing. It is amazing how a small story like that can turn into something fairly large. Not only have I been interviewed by, I do not know how many papers and radio stations, I actually was asked to talk to Canadian Broadcasting Services about two weekends ago, to discuss where these missing bridges were. The bridges have gone far and wide. Well, I am not sure whether the actual bridges have gone far and wide, but the story has. We are still looking for the bridge. We have had a couple of tips, but we still have not found them.
I will mention, as I said, how things turn into yarns. I had the Fairfax journalist rang me up and ask me to take him down to where the bridge was. I went down there and said: ‘Obviously, these people knew what they were doing, because you can see the footprints from the industrial boots’. Anyway, the story ended up in the Melbourne Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the West Australian. It was actually reprinted last weekend in the Sunday Territorian in Bushranger that Gerry Wood had said that, obviously, these people were professionals because everybody in the rural areas wear thongs and these blokes were wearing boots. It is amazing how something moves from a little statement, with a little journalistic poetic licence added, and you end up with a great yarn.
Hopefully, we will get the bridges and the government will consider making the old railway corridor a heritage precinct. Hopefully, they will also turn it into a bicycle/adventure trail because that is one way to preserve it.
On another issue, yesterday, I asked a question of the minister about the billing methods Power and Water is using, which is causing quite a bit of confusion. I spoke to one of those people concerned this afternoon, and they are concerned that, legally, they have to pay the bills that have been sent to them. They are so concerned they are asking whether Power and Water would at least send them letter saying their power will not be cut off because they have not paid those bills. They need to be reassured that that will not happen, because some of those bills are very large. I am hoping Power and Water will - even though they have told them over the phone their power will not be cut off - give them reassurance in writing. That would be a help to those people.
Another issue that has also affected me since the last sittings is the boundary changes. The member for Fannie Bay mentioned she had an extra school in her electorate. Well, I have the member for Wanguri as my neighbour now. I have the poo pool – sorry, I mean the Leanyer Recreation pool and the …
Mr Henderson: Beautiful pool it is, as well.
Mr WOOD: It is, too. There are a lot of people down there. I believe they held the Northern Territory Skateboard Championships down there recently. See, I am up with these things now, member for Wanguri.
I also have the Buffalo Creek boat ramp, at which I found there was actually a caretaker. It should be just about open this week?
Mr Henderson: Yes.
Mr WOOD: I think he said two weeks. I am hoping to get an invitation there to see the official opening of the security yard and car park at Buffalo creek.
My boundary has certainly changed. I now have the Cypriot Community, the Filipino Community and all those communities …
Mr Henderson: You will enjoy them, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Oh, yes. I have my own secondary school. I have Marrara Christian School, which is a secondary – and, of course, now another primary school as well. I have the police barracks, the Army barracks, Knuckey Lagoon which is, I must admit, old country for me because, for 13 years I was the local ward councillor for that area. I am quite happy to meet my old friends and put the old table and chair up in the place where I used to do it before.
Yes, I have some changes: a couple of caravan parks as well, and a bit of the industrial area. I have the two Aboriginal communities, so the percentage of Aboriginal people in my community has certainly gone up. However, again, I am lucky enough to at least have contacts with those people. The 11 Mile community has a number of Daly River and Port Keats people in that area, and there are Wadjigan people at the 15 Mile community, plus Maningrida people, of course, and some Tiwis. I feel comfortable having those areas. I always find the easiest people to talk to many times are the Aboriginal people because they are so down to earth. They have their problems, of course. Those communities certainly do not always have it easy, so they have some problems. I hope I can work with Aboriginal Development Foundation, the Palmerston City Council which runs the 15 Mile. The 15 Mile now is actually called the Palmerston Indigenous Village. It has taken me a lot of effort to really accept that name; 15 Mile is what it has always been called. I will have to get used to the changes.
My boundaries have certainly changed. I should say that it is very sad that I have lost the area of Herbert; not that the name Herbert is really appreciated by many people who live there - most people cannot stand the name. However, I have lost that area of my electorate plus part of the western side of Humpty Doo. That is a great shame because I have many good friends there. I was hoping I could actually retain that area as well as have the expansion, but the Electoral Commission knew better and I have a different electorate. I am also very pleased to have the barracks. I have been there a number of times. I have felt very welcome there, and I intend to serve as well as I can the members of the Defence Forces who live there.
Another issue I would like to raise is that, at the last sittings, I attempted to pass a property law reform bill. Sadly, that was not taken up by the government. The government did say that it was intending to put out a discussion paper. I would just like to remind it that it did say that they would put out a discussion paper early next year. The longer these changes in the way land is sold in the Northern Territory, the more you leave it open to people being not as protected as they should be when purchasing a property or a house. I would hope the government would speed up their discussion paper in this area. It is a very important area that needs looking at, and I am hoping that they will bring that forward at the next sittings, if possible. I hope they get the discussion paper out quickly.
I just have another little comment to make. We were talking about place names today and there was some discussion about Aboriginal names. I am a great fan of Aboriginal names. In fact, for a long time I felt that I knew more Aboriginal names in Victoria where I came from, than I did in the Northern Territory. There is Koo Wee Rup, Nar Nar Goon, Dandenong and all those sorts of places. However, around even the Litchfield Shire you were pushing to find one Aboriginal name. The one name, of course, is Murrumujuck which is the proposed township at Shoal Bay.
It is important we use as many Aboriginal names as possible. Dundee was mentioned. As I said before, my wife is Aboriginal; that is her country and I am sure it is not called Dundee. In fact, I am not even sure it is called Namarada although it comes under the Namarada area plan, because most Wadjigan place names start with a ‘B’. I would be surprised if that area is called Namarada in the first place. It is not so long since Aboriginal people were there, and I sometimes think developers perhaps should be aware that there are Aboriginal names for those areas, and they should at least be looking to using those names where possible. I also take the point that the member for Drysdale made: when using Aboriginal names, they should be written in a language one can pronounce. I raised this in Alice Springs last year or the year before, that when the phonetic people or the linguists get hold of names and write them in phonetics, sometimes they are impossible to say. Arrernte does not sound like the spelling you see today. If we are going to use Aboriginal names, they should be Anglicised in such a way so people understand how to pronounce them.
Finally, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker - I know it is late and this is last speech of the night, although the member for Wanguri may have something to say - I would just also like to thank my fellow politicians throughout parliament for all the work they do. Regardless of all the banter, I believe that good debate is what we need to have good legislation. On this side of parliament, although I do not regard myself as opposition, I suppose I am called the cross-bench. I am not cross, but I am on the bench which is not opposition nor government. However, we have a role to play in keeping the government honest, and I will try to continue to do that. I would like to wish all my fellow politicians a happy Christmas.
To all the staff of the Legislative Assembly, thank you very much for all the work you do, for the advice you give, for the odd tip at the races - thank you very much for those as well; to all the people who help out on the committees. They do a terrific amount of work and, without those people, I could not serve on committees because they do a lot of the background work, investigation and they help a lot. To the Hansard people, hopefully, they can understand a few speeches of mine. At times, I head off in different directions and they do have trouble understanding what I say. Thank you for being able to translate that and put it down on paper so that even I can understand it when I read it.
I have some wonderful people in my electorate and I enjoy their company and, hopefully, I can make a change for their lives to be a little better. They are a great lot of people. I enjoy meeting all the kids through sport throughout the year. I am blessed with a great lot of people – people who do not always agree with me, who never even voted for me. However, I still think that I am lucky to meet all those people; they certainly enrich one’s life.
To my great staff: Jenny, who was here today for the electorate officers’ get together, has a smile that starts off your Monday immediately. It might have been a busy weekend, there might be some issues that are really getting you down, but Jenny can cheer you up immediately. She is a great lady. She is certainly a wonderful person to have in the office, and is always very helpful to people with problems. She gets them a cup of tea, helps them with photocopying – whatever – she is just a wonderful lady. She is helped by Linda, who fills in when Jenny is out picking mangos. Linda volunteers to give a hand whenever, and she has been very helpful. At the moment, I think she is rolling up newsletters for distribution before Christmas. Liz works on Fridays. She is my Woman Friday. She also does a great job. She is studying at university, trying to raise three growing young people and working on Friday for us. She is a great help as well.
To Jo Van Os who does my cartoons, thank you. Jo used to be my electorate officer. She now lives in town, but she is always quite happy to do some drawings when I need them. Thanks, Jo, for all your help.
Of course, my family; I tell people I am a single married man these days because I am rarely home, but I do know I have support from my family. I have four little grandchildren these days and two of my daughters still live in the Darwin area. My eldest daughter has moved to Perth to work with the Department of Employment and Training there in Aboriginal areas and, as much as it is a long way from home, I know she is very happy there, so I am very pleased for her as well.
To all my supporters in the FOG group as they are called - the Friends of Gerry - thank you for your help during the year. It has been much appreciated.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish everyone a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude my Christmas greetings to a number of people this evening.
I send a big thank you to all members of Neighbourhood Watch in Wanguri and Leanyer, as they have contributed greatly to the Wanguri electorate in the last 12 months. The property crime rates in Wanguri are the lowest they have been for about 20 years, and a large part of that can be attributed to the activity of Neighbourhood Watch in the electorate, the increased police resourcing and the great policing that is happening now from Casuarina police station.
Thank you to the Neighbourhood Watch committee: Brian Kennedy, Jessica Horn, Jarna Neve, Robyn Harrison, Geoff Pickering and the local Casuarina police station for all of your work this year, particularly, for putting on the free Family Fun Day at Leanyer Primary School this year, which was a great day and allowed the community to come together. Neighbourhood Watch, you are doing a great job in the electorate, and I look forward to working with you again next year.
I would also like to thank my branch of the Labor Party, the Casuarina Branch, a fantastic branch that works very hard for all of the members of the Casuarina branch – me and the members for Casuarina and Johnston. I would particularly like to thank Russell Wilson, Andrew Fyles, Ron Greaves, George Mou, Costa Kariolias, Kent Rowe, John Rawnsley, Eunice De Ramos, Brian Kennedy and Judy Herring for huge support to all of the members in the branch, and members of parliament. Also to Frank Moukaddem, who is always there to help whenever he is needed. He does a lot of the unsung work around the branch. Frank, you are a true champion and it is absolutely wonderful working with you.
I would also like to thank my departments. There are the CEOs of my departments who work so hard. In DBIRD, I would like to again thank Peter Blake, who retired earlier this year, and welcome Mike Burgess, who has been in that role for some six months now and doing a great job. DBIRD is really hitting their straps, particularly the areas that I am responsible for, Asian Relations and Trade, the general business areas and policy areas of the department. I am getting great feedback from the business community for the work that you are all doing.
Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Commissioner Paul White, and everybody in the Northern Territory Police Force – it has been an absolutely magnificent year. The Territory is a much better place as a result of the work that the commissioner and all his team have been doing. I would like to thank everybody in the police for a great 12 months’ worth of work. Bruce Mouatt, the Acting Chief Fire Officer came in at a very difficult time this year, post the Metis review, and had the responsibility of bedding that down. The fire service is certainly a totally different place to what it was 12 months ago. Bruce, you are to take a large part in the credit of turning things around. To all the firies, I certainly appreciate that most people have let bygones be bygones, and put things behind them, and are working together and moving forward.
DCIS, is the unsung hero amongst all of the government agencies, a service delivery agency to other government agencies, as well as having the responsibility for IT policy and contract management for our outsourced IT service providers. CEO, Sarah Butterworth moved on to DIPE this year. Thank you, Sarah, for the great shape that you left the department in. Richard Galton, the incoming CEO, you are doing a great job. Welcome to the team, and I look forward to working with you next year.
Paul Tyrrell, the CEO of the Chief Minister’s and the Cabinet Office, it is a pleasure working with you. I appreciate your advice and guidance, Paul, and thank you for your contribution to the Territory. Shaun O’Sullivan and the Protocol team are doing a magnificent job, putting on all of the functions that we attend throughout the year. Parliamentary Counsel, Gale Jamieson and all the team work so hard putting government legislation together. There have been a few contentious things said this year but, quite genuinely, Gale and the team, all of us here in this House respect and appreciate the work that you do.
All the staff of the Legislative Assembly, the Clerk Ian McNeill, all of the team in Building Management, and Hansard, you do a fantastic job keeping the parliament going, and are well respected by everybody who works here.
Our ministerial drivers, Gary, George, Wayne, Yani, Thor and Hardy, do a fabulous job ferrying us all around. I certainly enjoy your company and your camaraderie. Thanks for the service.
Mr Deputy Speaker, other MLAs, I wish everybody here in the House a very happy and safe Christmas. To our caucus, a fantastic bunch of people to work with. It is a real pride and privilege to work with so many passionately committed people to leaving the Territory a better place than we found it when we all came to office. I enjoy everybody’s company. We have great friendships, we are a great team, and we look forward to working together even harder next year.
I would like to thank my electorate office staff, Jarna Neve. Jarna, you have done a fabulous job this year coming in after Ryan took off to Europe for 12 months. Thank you for all your hard work and innovation. Alanna Dinning and Marie McLean who step in for time to time – thank you for your support. Erin Grace and Christine Gray, who also help me out at the electorate office and also my ministerial office: it is great to have you on the team and you make a great contribution to the team.
Ministerial staff on the fifth floor work really hard trying to keep the wheels of government turning and implementing our election commitments and government policy. I know you all work really hard and all of Cabinet appreciate the work that you do. Also, not forgetting Andrea Martin and her team in the Office of Central Australia. Merry Christmas to you all, and I certainly look forward to working with you again in the new year. You do a fabulous job.
In my ministerial office is my Chief of Staff, Mark Nelson, Kieran Phillips, Rebecca Cass, Carole Frost, Sandy Sinclair, Jenny Tiernan. Thank you for the enormous work that you put in supporting me and the work that I do. I do not say thank you often enough; I know that. However, you know that I really appreciate all of the hours that you put in. It is a wonderful team in my office. Everybody pulls together really well and we are making a difference out there to everybody. That is why we came and put our hands up to become members of parliament and, ultimately, to be in government to leave the Territory a better place than we found it. You are all playing your parts.
Not forgetting Gabrielle Mullen and Jim Davidson, our candidate for Solomon and business advisor to me. Jim, bad luck this year. You certainly put in a great effort and worked as hard as you could, but the times were not yours, Jim. I know that you will go on to great things, and I look forward to catching up with you in the new year. Chantelle Barker, who left earlier this year for Alice Springs, is making a new life for herself in Alice, and I will catch up with you when I am next down there.
Last but not least, my family: my wife Stacey, boys, Alasdair and Liam, and my little princess, Isabel. I could not do this without your support. As all members here with family have said, this is a really hard job on our families. I certainly love you all and look forward to spending some great time over Christmas and into the surf in Newcastle in the new year.
To everybody: Merry Christmas and I look forward to seeing everybody back here in February next year.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016